Will pass an order if bench will continue to hear Ayodhya land dispute case: Supreme Court

The bench, which also comprised Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, had told the parties, "We're seriously giving a chance for mediation.

Will pass an order if bench will continue to hear Ayodhya land dispute case: Supreme Court
File photo

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it would pass an order whether the Constitution Bench will continue to hear Ayodhya title dispute case or it will again go back to a smaller bench.

Earlier in the day, the five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked the parties concerned to suggest the name of a mediator or panel of mediators. Responding to it, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha suggested three names — ex-Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Jagdish Singh Khehar and former Supreme Court judge AK Patnaik as the mediators in the Ayodhya land dispute case.

The bench, which also comprised Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, had told the parties, "We're seriously giving a chance for mediation.

"During today's hearing, Justice Bobde said, "It's about sentiments, about religion and about faith. We are conscious of the gravity of the dispute."

"There need not be one mediator but a panel of mediators. When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on," he said.

Justice Bobde said, "We have no control over what happened in the past, who invaded, who was the king, temple or mosque. We know about the present dispute. We are concerned only about resolving the dispute."

On February 26, the bench had said, “We have suggested to the parties that during the interregnum a court-appointed and court-monitored mediation with utmost confidentiality could be initiated to bring a permanent solution to the issues raised in the cases.”

“Even if there is only one per cent chance, it should be explored," Justice Bobde had said emphasising for mediation in the matter.

While Muslim side and Nirmohi Akhada from the Hindu side in the case agreed for mediation, the counsel appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha and Mahant Suresh Das were opposed to it saying court-appointed mediation had failed on earlier occasions.

The bench had recorded that apart from Nirmohi Akhada, Hindu sides in the case were not agreeable to mediation and that it could invoke its power under Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code for alternate dispute mechanism.

"We are considering a possibility of healing relationship," the bench had observed.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. 

(With Agency inputs)