We intend to pronounce the order shortly: CJI Ranjan Gogoi
Supreme Court has reserved its order in the Ayodhya case.
Right to worship can never be denied. In 400 years, we have never denied anybody their right to worship: Nirmohi Akhara
Faith and sentiments are non-negotiable. Only thing that can be considered is providing an alternate site for a mosque. We are ready to crowd fund it if required: Counsel for Ram Lalla
The issue is that mediation is bound by certain parameters that are unchangeable. The govt can give the land to anyone they see fit. The disputed land and the undisputed land both belongs to the govt. Narsimha Rao govt made a commitment that in case of a dispute, the land will be handed to the Hindus. It’s a part of the 1994 constitutional bench judgment. These aspects will bind the mediation which will mean there is nothing much to negotiate: Subaramanian Swamy, one of the petitioner in Ayodhya case
Rajeev Dhawan, counsel for Muslim parties, asks the bench to frame terms and conditions for the mediation before the matter is referred. Hindu parties allege that multiple parties are part of this suit. No agreement or compromise can be reached.
Purpose of mediation is to reach a compromise between parties: Justice Chandrachud
The entire mediation process can be concluded with just one word - success or failure. No details ought to be shared with the media: Rajeev Dhawan, counsel for Muslim parties
If mediation is decided upon, details will have to be curtailed from the media. It might not be a gag necessarily but no motive should be ascertained to anybody involved in the mediation process: Justice Bobde
The entire process of mediation can be capsulated in one word - “where”?: Rajeev Dhawan, counsel for Muslim parties
If the issue is referred for mediation, it’s not going to be one mediator but a panel of mediators: Justice Bobde
Consent of the parties is not required to refer the case for mediation. Arbitration and conciliation requires consent of the parties but it’s not necessary if the court wants to refer the case for mediation: Rajeev Dhawan, counsel for Muslim parties.
It’s not fair to assume that it will be a failure even before mediation is attempted. It’s your opinion. We are inclined to suggest mediation because it’s not just an issue about that land. It’s an issue of sentiment. It’s an issue about faith. We are conscious of the gravity of the dispute and conscious of the impact it will have. It’s not only about the land. It’s about mind, hearts and whether any healing is possible: Justice Bobde
Outcome of the mediation is not something the court considers when it orders for court monitored mediation. A matrimonial dispute that has been referred to for mediation might end up in divorce or might end up in reconciliation. That’s not something the court looks into: Justice Bobde
Hindu parties object to mediation, say it’s a futile exercise because objections will arise at the end of the mediation and no conclusion will be reached.
The five-judge bench of Supreme Court has assembled to hear the Ayodhya case.
Former Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar speaks to Republic TV, bats for mediation on Ayodhya land dispute case.
"It is a great opportunity for the country to show to the world that there can be a mediation even between religious communities . That is all what I have to say . That will be good for country . If India can mediate on religious line and get a breakthrough by conversation then there will be something show to the world that this is what India stands for . That's all what I want to say".
The Supreme Court on Wednesday will have a crucial hearing on Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya to decide whether the politically sensitive case can be adjudicated through mediation. 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.
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.
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.