In a high supreme drama, the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is expected to pass an order, on March 6 (Wednesday), on whether or not it would invoke Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure to attempt a court-monitored mediation in the decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi – Babri Masjid title suit. Though all the mediation parts for Ram Janmabhoomi – Babri Masjid land dispute held and failed, now in a time killing calculation, the apex court has opted to draw the case in such a way that no positive verdicts would find its way until the General election 2019 concludes. Actually, a section of advocates fighting in favor of Babri sides and connected with Congress lobby wanted that exactly evading the demand of Hindu sides to settle the case early and urgently.
 |
| High Supreme Drama to delay Ayodhya case in the name of mediation! But, What about the Hindu’s Fundamental Right to worship Ram Lala at Ram Janmabhoomi? |
The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer had, last week, indicated its desire for attempting mediation, under the supervision of the Supreme Court, to resolve the land dispute between the warring claimants. On February 26, the bench had said that it would pass an order, on March 6, on whether or not a court-monitored mediation can be directed in the case. Now it’s time for Ayodhya again in SC.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had asked the contesting parties to explore the possibility of amicably settling the decades-old dispute through mediation, saying it may help in “healing relationship”. Even if there is “one per cent chance” of settling the dispute amicably, the parties should go for mediation, the bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, had observed.
The suggestion for mediation was mooted by Justice Bobde, during the hearing when both the Hindu and the Muslim sides were sparring over the veracity of documents related to the case which were translated by the Uttar Pradesh government and filed with the apex court registry.
“We are considering it (mediation) very seriously. You all (parties) have used the word that this matter is not adversarial. We would like to give a chance to mediation even if there is one per cent chance,” the bench had said.
“We would like to know your (both parties) views on it. We do not want any third party to make a comment to jeopardize the entire process,” the bench had said. While some of the Muslim parties agreed to the court’s suggestion on mediation, some Hindu bodies including the Ram Lalla Virajman opposed it, saying several such attempts have failed in the past.
The bench noted in its order that lawyers representing the legal heirs of original litigants M Siddiq and Mohd Hashim and Nirmohi Akhara are “in broad agreement” with the suggestion of the court about meditation while counsel appearing for Sri Ram Lalla Virajman, Mahant Suresh Das and Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha have “not concurred” with it.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for M Siddiq, said they were agreeable to the “very important suggestion” of mediation but said the court should fix a time frame for mediation as the dispute was a “knotty issue”.
But, senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for Ram Lalla Virajman, said they did not agree for “another round of mediation” as such attempts have failed in the past.
Now, the Ayodhya case of land dispute certainly entered into a new dimension as Dr Subramanian Swamy’s point of merit for”Fundamental Right to Worship” as presumably detailed in W.P.(C) No. 105/2016 has demanded the transfer of undisputed lands to the Hindu bodies like Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas to start construction of Ayodhya Ram Temple to ease the worship of Lord Ramlala without delay.
In a tweet, Dr. Swamy told, “Today my Writ Petition is listed in SC for hearing on building a Ramlala Mandir in Ayodhya as my fundamental right, overpowering the claimed property rights of Sunni Wakf Board. I win and soon enough”. __HE
