“Notwithstanding the lack of consensus” between the contesting parties in the Ayodhya title dispute, the Supreme Court on Friday ordered mediation to settle the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Ayodhya title dispute case by a three-member panel.
The panelwill be headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla with Artof Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Shriram Panchu asits members. The mediation proceedings would be held at Faizabad in UttarPradesh and would commence in a week.
“We have considered the nature of the dispute arising.Notwithstanding the lack of consensus between the parties in the matter, we areof the view that an attempt should be made to settle the dispute bymediation,” said the order pronounced by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, whoheaded the five-judge constitution bench.
The othermembers of the bench were Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, JusticeAshok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
While theMuslim litigants agreed to mediation as it was not divorced from the regularhearing on the batch of petitions challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Courtjudgment, the Hindu litigants opposed it, saying that the birth place of LordRama was a matter of faith and belief for them and they can’t take a contraryposition in mediation.
The AllahabadHigh Court by its 2010 judgment had trifurcated the disputed site into threeequal parts, giving one each to the Nirmohi Akhada, Ram Lalla and the SunniWaqf Board.
The SC onFriday also barred both print and visual media from reporting on the mediationproceedings. It has also barred those participating in the proceedings fromspeaking to the media.
“We areof the opinion that while the mediation proceedings are being carried out,there ought not to be any reporting of the said proceedings either in the printor in the electronic media,” the court said.
However, thecourt refrained from passing any specific order and instead left it to themediators to pass “necessary orders in writing, if so required, torestrain publication of the details of the mediation proceedings.”
Asking the panel to ensure the completion of the mediation proceedings”during the period of interregnum,” the court sought the report onthe “progress of mediation” within four weeks of its commencement.
The “period of interregnum” is the eight weeks given to all theparties by the court’s February 26, 2019 order to take steps to make the casesready for regular hearing by the court.
Having closed the door onthe media, the court further directed that “…the mediation proceedingswill be held in camera as per the norms applicable to the conduct of mediationproceedings. The mediators may take such legal assistance as they may feelnecessary at any stage of the mediation proceedings.”
Pointing to the importance of “confidentiality”for the success of mediation, the court said, “We are also of the viewthat the mediation proceedings should be conducted with utmost confidentialityso as to ensure its success.”
The confidentiality of the proceedings, the court said, “can only be safeguarded by directing that the proceedings of mediation and the views expressed therein by any of the parties, including the learned mediators, shall be kept confidential and shall not be revealed to any other person.”