A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi proposed sending the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid legal battle to mediation for a period of eight weeks. In a two-pronged approach, the Bench on Tuesday strongly pitched for the healing touch of an out-of-court settlement between the Muslim and Hindu parties through court-monitored mediation even as it simultaneously went ahead with preparations to finally hear the Ayodhya title suit appeals pending for almost nine years in the court.
Justice S.A. Bobde, on the Bench, said the mediation, if done, would be confidential and court-monitored. The Ayodhya dispute was "much more" than a mere property dispute. It has dragged on for decades. Mediation may result in the permanent resolution of the dispute. An effort should be made even if there is only a "one percent chance of success". Eight weeks is the time given to the Muslim parties to examine the accuracy and relevance of the Uttar Pradesh government's official translation of thousands of pages of oral depositions and exhibits in the Ayodhya title suit appeals. Chief Justice Gogoi said a shot at mediation under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code would be an "effective utilisation of time" during the interregnum. The CJI also expressed the hope that mediation may spell a peaceful end to the volatile dispute between two faiths over the land where the Babri Masjid once stood before it was demolished by kar sevaks on December 6, 1992. The Muslim parties led by senior advocates Rajeev Dhawan and Dushyant Dave said the mediation route had been tried before, but their side was in "broad agreement" for another opportunity.
'Mediation to be monitored by court'
The Uttar Pradesh government and senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, who represents deity Ram Lalla, both disagreed with the court's suggestion for a mediation. But Nirmohi Akhara, one of the Hindu organisations, said they were agreeable. "It has been tried before by Shankaracharya and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar... But all that has been of no use," Mr. Vaidyanathan insisted. "But we are the court. This will be monitored by the Supreme Court," Chief Justice Gogoi responded. "Mr. Vaidyanathan, you as well as anyone know that this is not just a dispute over title to a property. It is not a dispute over a private property, but the public right to worship... There has not been mediation at any point of time in this case. That is why we are seriously considering this alternative dispute resolution mechanism under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code," Justice Bobde. Brushing aside the mixture of agreements and discontent expressed over the court's suggestion for mediation, the Bench made it clear in its order that Section 89 clothes the court with the power to override objections and push for a peaceful settlement of a dispute. The powers of the court under Section 89 is indeed unlimited. The CJI observed in the order that a court-monitored mediation, if ordered, would be done with the "utmost confidentiality". The mediation would confront issues raised before the court in the appeals.
The court, however, deferred referring the dispute for mediation to March 5. "We will pass orders on Tuesday," Chief Justice Gogoi observed. The hearing began with the CJI handing out and reading from a report of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court about the state of readiness of the Ayodhya title suit appeals. The CJI said documents numbered 38471 pages. "If the official translations filed by the Uttar Pradesh government is acceptable to all, the case should commence hearing. Once proceedings start, there should not be any contest to the accuracy of the translations," he observed. Mr. Dhawan said his clients should be given an opportunity to examine the translations of the State government. But Mr. Vaidyanathan protested that Mr. Dhawan, appearing for appellant M. Siddique, was trying to delay hearing of the appeals. He said several orders had been passed by the apex court as way back as in 2015, giving opportunity to Mr. Dhawan's side to examine the State's translations and report back. "For all these years, they did nothing and now they raise objections," Mr. Vaidyanathan countered Mr. Dhawan. But Mr. Dhawan submitted that there may have been some "exchanges" in the past, but those necessarily did not amount to discussions on the accuracy of the translations. "That penultimate exercise has to take place," he said. But Chief Justice Gogoi indicated that the court does not intend to wait indefinitely to hear the appeals. "We will not waste our time over your dispute about the authenticity of the translations," he said. "What kind of time do you need to determine the authenticity of the UP government's translations?" Chief Justice Gogoi asked, before fixing the period as eight weeks. The court said it was necessary to reach a consensus on the authenticity of the translations so that no controversy would be raised later that would derail the proceedings in the appeals.
