The five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer was hearing the matter. (File photo)The Supreme Court Tuesday suggested mediation between the parties in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute saying the court could only decide on property and what it was looking at was “a possibility of healing relationships”.
Senior Counsel C S Vaidyanathan appearing for Ramlalla Virajman opposed this saying mediation had already been tried earlier but had not worked. Senior Counsel Rajeev Dhavan appearing for a party on the Mosque side said they were ready to give it another shot “in larger interest”.
“You seriously think the entire dispute for so many years is only about property? It’s not a dispute over private property. It has become so contentious. Therefore we are considering a possibility of healing relations even if there’s one per cent chance of success”, observed Justice S A Bobde who was part of the five-Judge Constitution bench that took up appeals against the September 30, 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court.
The HC had ordered a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site between the Nirmohi Akhara sect, the Sunni Central Wakf Board, Uttar Pradesh and Ramlalla Virajman.
“We have a perspective on the matter – it’s a dispute resolution mechanism”, Justice Bobde added.
The bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi also comprised Justices D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.
CJI Gogoi initiated the suggestion of a court-monitored mediation asking the parties their opinion to the court invoking section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code while it gives them time to authenticate the translations of the evidence.
Section 89 says that “Where it appears to the court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for a) arbitration; b) conciliation; c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or d) mediation”.
While Dhavan submitted that his party will “have to check the veracity of translated documents provided by the UP government”, Vaidyanathan contended saying the translations were already verified and accepted on December 2017.
The bench refrained from passing any order on its suggestion for mediation and said it will look into this when it meets again on March 5.
The court also gave the parties eight weeks time to examine the authenticity of the translations of the oral evidence done by translators appointed by Uttar Pradesh government so that there is no dispute regarding same when hearing recommences.
