SC reserves order today: The Supreme Court of India on march 6 began hearing the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case. Here, It may decide to refer the case to a court-monitored mediator in order to come out with a ‘permanent solution’ in the Ayodhya Ram Temple case.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi had, on February 26, suggested that an amicable solution to the dispute could be found via mediation and said that it would pass an order in this regard on March 6.
Meanwhile, Rajeev Dhawan, lawyer for Muslim parties, says it has to bind everybody otherwise court would be ignoring the fact there is a procedure under the law. He says sentiments need not be gone into by the court. Sentiments will always be there for communities .. Sabarimala had sentiment .. there will always be some angst .. why is the court talking about angst otherwise what’s the purpose of procedure.. we are open to mediation”.
Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case – Live Updates:
Last Updated, 12:31:45 PM
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Gogoi says the parties can suggest names of mediators. “When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on,” Moreover, “We cannot undo Babar invading… We can only look into the current situation,” says Justice SA Bobde. It is about mind, heart and healing relationships. We are also conscious of gravity of the issue and its impact on the body politic. Don’t think you have more faith than us,” he argued.
One of the lawyers present in court opposes mediation, saying even if the parties agree the public will not agree to a compromise. To this, Justice SA Bobde says, “You are assuming that there will be a compromise and one party will give up and one party will win. Mediation does not necessarily mean that. You are already thinking about the outcome.” TN reported.
“There need not be one mediator but a panel of mediators,” Justice Bobde says. “When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on,” he adds.
There has been a massive shift in the Supreme Court’s earlier stance to treat the Tam Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title case as a property dispute. Justice SA Bobde said it’s just not an issue of property but an issue of sentiment and faith. “It’s about sentiments, about religion and about faith. We are conscious of the gravity of the dispute. We have no control over what happened in the past, who invaded, who was the king, temple or mosque. We know about the present dispute. We are concerned only about resolving the dispute,” Justice Bobde added.
Hindu Mahasabha opposes the move to refer Ayodhya case for mediation. It says even for arbitration and mediation, a formal notice has to be issued by the court. The organisation says there should also be a public notice on the matter. “As far as we are concerned, there is no dispute… property is ours. Mediation will fail,” Hindu Mahasabha says in the court.
Hearing begins in Supreme Court on Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. Court to decide on whether the case may be sent for court-monitored mediation to save time.
UP opposes mediation: Uttar Pradesh opposes mediation, says it’s for the court to decide on the legality of whether mediation can bre ordered or not. Says mediation can be ordered when it appears to court there exists an element of a settlement.. considering the facts of the case, the nature of dispute and possible fallout not be advisable or prudent to undertake this path”. HT reported.
Background
“We have suggested to the parties that during the interregnum a court-appointed and court-monitored mediation with utmost confidentiality could be initiated to bring a permanent solution to the issues raised in the cases,” the bench had said on February 26.
While the Muslim side- the Sunni Waqf Board aking with Nirmohi Akhada agreed for the mediation, the counsels appearing for Ram Lalla Virajman, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha and Mahant Suresh Das argued that mediation had failed in the past and is thus, not an appropriate approach to resolve the dispute.
Justice SA Bobde had, however, said that “even if there is only one per cent chance, it should be explored”. The matter pertains to appeals in a 2010 order of the Allahabad High Court which divided the disputed 2.77-acre land into three equal parts among the three disputing parties.
In January, the Centre had asked for 67 acres of the non-disputed part to be handed over to it so that it could be transferred to its original owners. It may be noted that the Babri Masjid structure stood on 0.313 acres and was demolished by Kar Sevaks on December 6, 1992. This was within the 2.77 acres disputed land.
(With the Inputs of TN)
