A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court Wednesday commenced hearing on the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.
A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court Wednesday commenced hearing on the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi after hearing reserved the order on whether the case can be adjudicated through mediation.
The other judges of the bench are Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.The top court on February 26 had said it would pass an order on March 6 on whether to refer the matter to a court-appointed mediator.
The court asked the parties concerned to suggest the name of a mediator or panel of mediators.A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, "We intend to pass the order soon."
In the hearing, Justice Bobde came out strong for mediation in the case. As one lawyer opposed any such process, Justice Bobde said, " You are assuming there will be a compromise and one party will give up and one party will win. Mediation does not necessarily mean that.".
He also said. "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.It’s about sentiments, about religion and about faith. We are conscious of the gravity of the dispute."
Rajeev Dhawan representing the Muslim petitioners that they are agreeable to a mediation. "Muslim petitioners are agreeable to mediation&any compromise or settlement will bind parties," said Dhawan and asked bench to frame terms for mediation
Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan representing the Hindu petitioners said that earlier such mediation attempts have failed. He said that the Ram temple has to be built at that spot. He said that the mosque has to be built somewhere else and they are ready to crowdfund it.
Finally after long discussion, SC bench reserved their order regarding the possibility of mediation.
1. UP govt says mediation not advisable
)
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for UP govt tells court it won't be advisable to pursue the path of mediation considering the facts of the case, nature of dispute, and the eventuality of the decree.
2. No need for negotiation: Subramanian Swamy
)
Subramanian Swamy told the court that there is nothing to negotiate as the land belongs to the central government under the Acquisition Act of 1993. In 1994 the then Narasimha Rao govt agreed to give land to Hindus if a preexisting temple is to be found there. Only thing Muslims can claim is compensation.
3. What happened earlier?
)
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had asked the contesting parties to explore the possibility of amicably settling the decades old dispute through mediation, saying it may help in "healing relations".
Even if there is "one per cent chance" of settling the dispute amicably, the parties should go for mediation, the bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, had observed.
The suggestion for mediation was mooted by Justice Bobde, during the hearing when both the Hindu and the Muslim sides were sparring over the veracity of documents related to the case which were translated by the Uttar Pradesh government and filed with the apex court registry.
"We are considering it (mediation) very seriously. You all (parties) have used the word that this matter is not adversarial. We would like to give a chance to mediation even if there is one per cent chance," the bench had said.
"We would like to know your (both parties) views on it. We do not want any third party to make a comment to jeopardise the entire process," the bench had said.
4. Not all parties are keen on mediation
)
While some of the Muslim parties agreed to the court's suggestion on mediation, some Hindu bodies including the Ram Lalla Virajman opposed it, saying several such attempts have failed in the past.
"Do you seriously think that the entire dispute for so many years is for property? We can only decide property rights but we are considering the possibility of healing relations," the bench had said.
The bench, which posted the main matter for hearing after eight weeks and directed its registry to provide translated copies of documents to the parties within six weeks to check their veracity, said it wanted to explore the possibility of mediation to utilise the time till the next date of hearing.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla
