A five-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi sent the Ayodhya dispute for mediation in a bid to heal minds and hearts "if possible".
The Supreme Court on Friday appointed a panel of mediators, including former apex court judge, Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla, as Chairman, spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, a veteran lawyer with years of experience in alternative dispute resolution.
The Ayodhya dispute mediation would start in a week's time in Faizabad district in Uttar Pradesh, of which the disputed area in Ayodhya is a part of. It would be held with "utmost confidentiality". The court ordered that there would be no reporting in print or electronic on the process of mediation. The time given for mediation is eight weeks, but the court urged the mediators to "conclude at the earliest". The mediators would have to file a status report in the court in four weeks.
The court said the Ayodhya dispute mediators could co-opt more on the panel if necessary and take whatever legal assistance required for them.
The Uttar Pradesh government would provide the mediators with all the necessary facilities in Faizabad. The mediation would be held in-camera.
"No legal impediment"
The court has held that there was no "legal impediment" to sending the Ayodhya dispute for mediation. It cited Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code for attempting to arrive at a 'compromise decree' in the long-pending civil dispute for the title of the disputed area where the Babri Masjid once stood before it's demolition by kar sevaks in 1992.
'According to the provision, if the parties reach an agreement, the Supreme Court can order such a settlement to be recorded and pass a decree accepting the resolution among the parties.
The Bench had pushed "negotiated compromise" as a means to heal hearts and minds. It has said the dispute was a festering wound which has touched the religious sentiments of the Hindu and Muslim communities for decades.
Justice S.A. Bobde, on the Bench, had put matters in perspective by observing that the court was only concerned about the present state of the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case and not the past history of "Mughal invasion and conquests of Babur".
"Primarily this is not about the 1500 sq ft of disputed land, but about religious sentiments. We know its impact on public sentiment, on body politic. We are looking at minds, hearts and healing if possible," Justice Bobde had observed.
The Muslim parties had agreed to give mediation a try, while there is a dissonance of opinions among the Hindu appellants, who have said their faith that Lord Ram was born in the disputed land was non-negotiable.They had even suggested that the court should issue a public notice on whether or not to send the dispute for mediation.
"The faith that Lord Ram was born there is not negotiable. But we are willing to crowd-fund a mosque somewhere else," senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, for Ram Lalla, the deity, had submitted.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Uttar Pradesh government had also submitted that the path of mediation was both "imprudent and inadvisable".
The eight-week deadline is the time given to the Muslim parties to examine the accuracy and relevance of the Uttar Pradesh government's official translation of thousands of pages of oral depositions and exhibits in the Ayodhya title suit appeals which have been pending since 2010.
In a February 26 hearing, Chief Justice Gogoi had invoked Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code to propose mediation as an "effective utilisation of time" during the eight weeks.
The CJI had expressed hope that mediation may spell a peaceful end to the volatile dispute between the members of the two religious faiths.