The Supreme Court Tuesday asked thecontending parties in the politically-sensitive Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjidland dispute in Ayodhya to seriously consider mediation for a permanentsolution even if there is “one per cent chance” of success.
Observing it was looking at the possibilityof “healing relations” between the parties, a five-judge constitution benchheaded by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi also said it would pass an order on March6 on whether to refer the dispute to a court-appointed mediator.
The suggestion for another round of mediation,however, drew a mixed response from the parties to the decades-old dispute.
The proposal was mooted by one of thejudges, Justice S A Bobde, during the hearing when both the Hindu and theMuslim litigants were sparring over the veracity
of documents related to the case which weretranslated by the Uttar Pradesh government and filed with the apex courtregistry.
“We are considering it (mediation) veryseriously. You all (parties) have used the word that this matter is notadversarial. We would like to give a chance to mediation even if there is oneper cent chance,” said the bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud,Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.
“We would like to know your (both parties)views on it. We do not want any third party to make a comment to jeopardise theentire process”.
“This, we have done keeping in mind thatthe period of eight weeks that we have allowed to the parties to go through thetranslations of the oral and documentary evidence could be effectively utilisedto try and resolve the issues in the manner indicated above,” the bench said.
“We have suggested to the parties thatduring the interregnum a court appointed and court monitored mediation withutmost confidentiality could be initiated to bring a permanent solution to theissues raised in the cases,” it observed.
The bench noted in its order that lawyersrepresenting the legal heirs of original litigants M Siddiq and Mohd Hashim andNirmohi Akhara are “in broad agreement” with the suggestion of the court aboutmediation while counsel appearing for Sri Ram Lalla Virajman, Mahant Suresh Dasand Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha have “not concurred” with it.
“Do you seriously think that the entiredispute for so many years is for property? We can only decide property rightsbut we are considering the possibility of healing relations,” it said.
“Keeping in mind that the mediationsuggested by the court is in terms of the mandate under section 89 of the CPCand in an appropriate case it will always be open for the court to invoke itspower, we deem it proper to observe that the mediation suggested is only toeffectively utilise the time of eight weeks that would be taken to make thecases ready for hearing,” the bench said in its written order.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearingfor M Siddiq, said they were agreeable to the “very important suggestion” ofmediation but said the court should fix a time frame for mediation as thedispute was a “knotty issue”.
“We will also have to fix the time frameafter talking to the mediator,” the bench said.
Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearingfor Ram Lalla Virajman, said they did not agree for “another round ofmediation” as such attempts have failed in the past.
“Inthe earlier mediation, it was accepted that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya butnot at this (disputed) site. Mediation has been tried not once but severaltimes,” he said.
Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing forone of the parties, said things have not worked during earlier round ofmediation and “everybody wants that the matter should be decided by the SupremeCourt”.
“Mediation is not possible so this courtshould decide the matter,” Kumar said.
Dhavan referred to the mediation heldbetween 1991-93 and said, “In the larger interest, this court is saying do it(mediation) again. From our side, we are agreeable”.
At the outset, the apex court said it canproceed with the hearing if there is consensus among the parties with regard tothe veracity of the translated documents.
The bench referred to a report filed by thesecretary general of the apex court on the status of documents pertaining tothe case which said that “the record consists of 38,147 pages of which 12,814pages are in Hindi, 18,607 pages are in English, 501 pages are in Urdu, 97pages are in Gurmukhi, 21 pages are in Sanskrit, 86 pages are in other languagescripts, 14 pages contain images and 1,729 pages are in combination of morethan one language script”.
The report, which was shared with theparties in the court, said 11,479 pages were required to be translated and ifall eight official translators of the apex court are asked to do the job, it islikely to take about 120 working days to make the case ready for hearing.
Vaidyanathan, however, said the exercise oftranslation has already been conducted and the parties had raised no objectionswith regard to their veracity earlier.
He said it was “not appropriate” for theother side to now raise this issue as translated documents were verified andaccepted by all parties in December 2017.
Dhavan said they have not examined thetranslated copies of the documents filed by the Uttar Pradesh government andthey have a right to examine its veracity.
“I am insisting on my right to examine it(documents),” he said, adding, “This kind of accusation (from the other side)that we do not want to argue the case is not right. We do want to argue thecase. Apart from authenticity, we will also examine the documents for itsrelevance.”
However, the bench said, “So dispute isarising between the parties about the authenticity of translated documents. Weare not going to waste our time if the parties have dispute over this.”
The bench said that after the hearingcommences in the matter, it does not want a situation where any of the partiesraises objection about veracity of the documents.
“….We are of the view that to proceedwith the hearing of the cases it is necessary to have on record translation ofthe depositions as well as the Exhibits on which no controversy can be raisedat a later point of time to derail the hearing once the same commences.”
Fourteen appeals have been filed in theapex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in fourcivil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally amongthe three parties—the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.