“Mediation proceedings will be confidential,” the CJI said, adding that media will be banned from reporting on it
The court added that the mediation will be held on-camera
A three-judge bench had in September 2018 refused to refer to a five-judge Constitution bench the issue related to reconsideration of the observation in the SC’s 1994 judgment that a mosque wasn’t integral to Islam
Twenty-five litigants in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case along with their counsels appeared before a Supreme Court-appointed mediation panel.
The Faizabad administration had issued notices to the 25 litigants on behalf of the panel.
The mediation process will take place at a hall at the Faizabad Avadh University, they said, adding that no one has been allowed to enter the area where the mediation is taking place.
Heavy security arrangements have been made at the university premises, Faizabad District Magistrate Anuj Kumar Jha said.
All India Babri Masjid Action Committee Convener Zafaryab Jilani on Tuesday, 12 March, called for a meeting of the Committee in Lucknow to deliberate over the Ayodhya land dispute matter, ANI reported.
Slamming the Modi government, the Hindutva leader said: "Three ordinances have been promulgated on triple talaq for Muslim women. Why not one for the Mandir?"
Lok Janshakti Party chief and Union minister Ram Vilas Paswan on Friday, 8 March, welcomed the Supreme Court order for time-bound mediation in the Ram temple case, saying if it leads to the issue's resolution, then this is the "best" course.
"We welcome this decision. If mediation leads to the dispute's resolution, then this is the best way," the BJP ally said in a tweet.
“We are experiencing that Hindus are constantly being neglected. While having full respect in the judicial system, we would like to say emphatically that the judgment on the dispute must expedite and remove the obstacles in constructing a grand temple.”
"Since 1992, BJP has kept the issue alive so as to be used in every election for political vote garnering and relegate the Ram Mandir issue to the annals of history post-election – to be revived again in the next election. We sincerely hope that people of India will see through the duplicity and doublespeak of BJP," he said, as per PTI.
While BJP MP Subramanian Swamy stressed that the construction of Ram temple is non-negotiable. "There is no question of not building a temple where we believe Lord Ram was born," he added, as per PTI.
"Can there be anything other than a mosque in Mecca and Madina?... Do Hindus have not even this much right after partition that we can offer prayers to Lord Ram in Ayodhya?" Union minister Giriraj Singh asked.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Friday, 8 March, welcomed the Supreme Court referring the vexed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for mediation, saying it would be most befitting that the matter is resolved through negotiations.
"The Supreme Court has given this order and it needs to be welcomed... It would be most befitting that the matter is resolved through dialogue...let's see what happens now," AIMPLB general secretary Maulana Wali Rehmani told PTI.
Senior advocate Sriram Panchu, appointed by the Supreme Court in a three-member mediation panel for the Ayodhya case, said that Ayodhya dispute was a ‘serious responsibility’.
"It is a very serious responsibility given to me by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I will do my best," he said, as per NDTV.
The Nationalist Congress Party on Friday, 8 March, welcomed the mediation panel appointed by the Supreme Court in Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case and said resolution of differences by consensus was in national interest.
NCP spokesperson Nawab Malik, in a statement, said, as per PTI: "We welcome the appointment of the three-member mediation panel. If the dispute is resolved, it will be in national interest. The nation is hopeful that the issue would be resolved through consensus."
The apex court appointed Justice Fakir Muhammad Ibrahim Kalifulla as the head of the three-member mediation committee, with Art of Living Founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu as the other two members.
"Supreme Court has opened historic opportunity for us Indians to reaffirm the path of togetherness and harmony,” Congress’ Salman Khurshid tweeted on Friday, 8 February.
“Mediation in Ayodhya matter can show the path to the shared destiny of Hindus and Muslims. No winner-loser syndrome only winners: Indians and India," he said.
Reacting to the Supreme Court's order to constitute a panel for mediating the Ayodhya matter, BSP supremo Mayawati said that it “seems (to be) an honest effort."
“Hon'ble Court looking for ‘a possibility of healing relationships’ is an appreciable move. BSP welcomes it,” she tweeted.
AIMPLB member and convener of Babri Masjid Action Committee Zafaryab Jilani said that he will cooperate with the mediation process.
“We have already said that we will cooperate in the mediation. Now, whatever we have to say, we will say it to the mediation panel and not outside,” said Jilani.
Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister KP Maurya said that he will not question the SC order. However, he added that no devotee of Lord Ram will want delay in the construction of Ram Mandir.
“Won't question the SC order. In the past, efforts made to arrive at a solution – but with no success. No Lord Ram devotee or saint wants delay in construction of the mandir,” said KP Maurya.
The order also said that the mediators can co-opt more on the panel if necessary and that the Uttar Pradesh government to provide mediators all the facilities in Faizabad.
“Mediators can seek further legal assistance as and when required,” the order said.
The Supreme Court in its order also said that the reporting of the mediation proceedings in media will be banned, and that mediation proceedings should be held on-camera.
The mediation process will be held in Uttar Pradesh’s Faizabad and will start in four weeks.
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench on Friday, 8 March, referred Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for a monitored mediation for a “permanent solution”. The apex court appointed Justice FMI Kalfullah, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, and senior advocate Sriram Panchu as mediators.
The Supreme Court on Friday, 8 March, will pronounce its order on whether to send the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for court-appointed and monitored mediation for a “permanent solution”.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 6 March, said that it would pass an order on whether the Constitution Bench will continue to hear the writ petitions in connection with the case.
This does not directly apply to the Ayodhya title dispute case.
Muslim parties show willingness for mediation. Rajeev Dhavan, representing Sunni Waqf Board, says consent of all parties not required to go mediation.
Advocate Rajeev Dhavan,who is appearing for group of Muslim petitioners in the case says, "Muslim petitioners are agreeable to mediation&any compromise or settlement will bind parties."
Hindu parties are opposing the suggestion to mediate, saying the matter is not simply a property dispute. As a result, public may not be satisfied with the result.
Subramaniam Swamy tries to intervene, and when allowed to speak, says that any compromise between the parties will have to include a right for Hindus to pray at the birthplace of Lord Ram.
CJI Gogoi notes that the proceedings can only begin after translated documents are in place over which there is no controversy. He then begins dictating his order, in which he gives the parties six weeks to examine the translations and submit any objections.
The Chief Justice also asks the parties if they will consider mediation, but because Vaidyanathan doesn’t agree, this is not included in the order. The decision to refer the case for mediation will be taken at the next hearing.
"Mediation is not possible, not agreeable. Your Lordships may decide the matter as early as possible, submits Sr. Adv. Ranjit Kumar. #SupremeCourt#Ayodhya
The CJI then asks Dhavan how long he needs to review the documents. Dhavan and Dushyant Dave, also representing one of the Muslim parties, say they need “8-12 weeks”.
At the outset, CJI Ranjan Gogoi asked the parties if they have all had a chance to review the official translations of documents for the case. There are several thousand pages of documents which are relevant to the case, and the Chief Justice said they did not want the parties to object to the correctness of the documents later, which would delay the hearings.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for some of the Muslim parties, argues that they had not had a chance to review all the translations. Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, representing Ram Lalla, objects to this, noting that there has been enough time to review the documents. He also draws attention to the court’s order of December 2017, when the court expressed hope the parties wouldn’t ask for adjournments.
Rajeev Dhavan responds by saying there had been no opportunity to review the documents since the previous hearings had dealt with the question of whether the matter should be referred to a larger bench.
CJI Gogoi: “We are not going to waste our time if disputes are going to be raised over translations of documents.”
The Supreme Court has begun hearing the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute matter, with the five-judge Constitution bench expected to decide on the date when the hearings will start and come up with a schedule.
