Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court of India reserved its order to ascertain the scope of mediation in the Ayodhya dispute. Justice Chandrachud himself said that it was the most desirable option, but the effectiveness of the process, according to him, was something to be pondered. He thought of how mediation could bind the people belonging to both the religions, as the case was not between two parties.
Previously, the court had adjourned the matter stating that hearing would commence only where the parties agree that the translations prepared by the UP government as authentic.It had granted six weeks time to examine the translated material records for ascertaining objections, as a consequence of which the Muslim groups questioned the authenticity of the records.
The documents submitted by the Secretary-General ran into about 38,000 pages in various languages, which are Hindi, Urdu, Sanskrit, English and Gurumukhi. Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan pointed out said that the Muslim group accepted the translation’s authenticity in December 2017, and were ready for the final hearing. The Court in its previous hearing said it would not hear the matter unless the parties agree on the translation's authenticity.
The Hindu Groups opposed the idea of mediation, whereas the other side endorsed the idea. Even Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the mediation option claiming that it was not prudent and advisable. However, the other side objected to this argument stating that the government should be in a neutral position. In the instant case, it was not just a land dispute but an issue concerning the faith.
Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan persuaded the court contending that the birthplace of Lord Ram was indisputable, and they intend to crowdfund the construction of mosque elsewhere. The Akhil Bharath Hindu Mahasabha submitted that participation of the general public should be ordered after issuing notice under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in case of opting mediation.
The Muslim groups extended their support for the idea of mediation. Rajeev Dhawan said the court that the consent of all the parties under 89 of CPC was not required for the court to refer the parties to mediation. Justice Bobe said that the court understood the gravity of the dispute and its impact on “body politic”. The court endeavours to heal relations, and considers maintaining the confidentiality of the mediation process by banning media reporting on the mediation process. He also said that if decree could bind all the parties in a representative suit, mediation could also do the same.
After hearing both the parties, the court reserved its order to decide if the parties should be referred to mediation and adjourned the matter.
86540
103860
630
114
59824