A Supreme Court Constitution bench reserved order on whether to refer the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid title dispute case for mediation. There has been stiff opposition from Hindu groups to mediation. According to them, it is not just a property dispute but concerns faith and sentiments. Senior Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, who appeared for the deity, said, "The belief that the site is the birth place...
A Supreme Court Constitution bench reserved order on whether to refer the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid title dispute case for mediation. There has been stiff opposition from Hindu groups to mediation. According to them, it is not just a property dispute but concerns faith and sentiments. Senior Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, who appeared for the deity, said, "The belief that the site is the birth place of Lord Ram is non-negotiable. We are ready to crowd-fund the construction of a mosque elsewhere."
According to the Akhil Bharath Hindu Mahasabha, if mediation is ordered, the general public should be allowed to participate if at after issuing public notice under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
By contrast, Muslim groups said they were willing to participate in mediation. Appearing for the Sunni Waqf Board, Senior Counsel Rajeev Dhawan submitted that all the parties’ consent was not necessary for the Court to refer the parties to mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
From the bench of the court, Justice Bobde orally remarked that the Court was conscious of the gravity of the dispute and its impact on the "body politic". He said that the endeavor was to "heal relations".
Confidentiality would be maintained if the case was referred for mediation, he assured. The court was considering banning media reporting on the mediation process, he indicated.
Justice Chandrachud however seemed to have reservations about the mediation process’ efficacy. But at the same time, he said that a negotiated settlement in the case was most “desirable”.
The Court reserved orders after hearing all parties.