The Supreme Court will announce its decision on whether to refer the Ayodhya title dispute to mediation at 10:30 am on Friday, 8 March. It will also be announcing whether the writ petitions filed in relation to the case, such as Subramanian Swamy’s for Hindus to be able to pray at the disputed site, will need to be heard by the current five-judge Constitution Bench or a smaller number of judges.
Just a day earlier, the apex court reserved its order. While the Muslim groups were open to mediation, the Hindu groups opposed it.
CJI Ranjan Gogoi has asked all parties to submit to the court the names of possible mediators, as the judges intend to announce their decision shortly.
- The Centre had on 29 January moved SC seeking its nod to return the 67-acre undisputed acquired land around the disputed site to original owners
- The bench comprises CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandradhud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer
- A three-judge bench had in September 2018 refused to refer to a five-judge Constitution bench the issue related to reconsideration of the observation in the SC’s 1994 judgment that a mosque wasn’t integral to Islam
SC to Pronounce Order on Court-Appointed Mediation Tomorrow
The Supreme Court on Friday, 8 March, will pronounce its order on whether to send the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for court-appointed and monitored mediation for a “permanent solution”.
Will Pass Order on Constitution Bench for Writ Petitions, Says SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 6 March, said that it would pass an order on whether the Constitution Bench will continue to hear the writ petitions in connection with the case.
This does not directly apply to the Ayodhya title dispute case.
Mediation Cannot Happen, There Will Be No Compromise: Hindu Mahasabha
Hindu Mahasabha advocate Varun Jain told the media that the outfit is against mediation as there an be no compromisre on Lord Ram’s land.
CJI Asks All Parties To Submit Names of Possible Mediators Today
CJI Gogoi asks all parties to submit to the court the names of possible mediators, as the judges intend to announce their decision shortly.
SC Reserves Order
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 6 March. reserved its order on whether to refer Ayodhya land dispute case to court-appointed mediator.
Mediation Bound by Certain Parameters: Subramanian Swamy
BJP leader Subramanian Swamy argues mediation is bound by certain parameters.
Media Won't Cover Mediation Proceedings: SC
The Bench has clarified that media will not get to cover the mediation proceedings.
Muslim Groups Express Willingness for Mediation
Muslim parties show willingness for mediation. Rajeev Dhavan, representing Sunni Waqf Board, says consent of all parties not required to go mediation.
Advocate Rajeev Dhavan,who is appearing for group of Muslim petitioners in the case says, "Muslim petitioners are agreeable to mediation&any compromise or settlement will bind parties."
'The Past Cannot be Undone:' Justice Bobde
Justice SA Bobde points out that this is pre-judging the outcome, rather than looking at the possibilities for healing and reconciliation.
According to Live Law, Bobde said that what’s done in the past cannot be undone. "We can only decide what happens in the present," he said.
Hindu Groups Oppose Mediation
Hindu parties are opposing the suggestion to mediate, saying the matter is not simply a property dispute. As a result, public may not be satisfied with the result.
SC Commences Hearing on Ayodhya Case
CJI Ranjan Gogoi clarifies that the hearing will be restricted to the limited point of whether or not the case should be referred to mediation.
SC to Decide on Court-Appointed Mediator Today
The Supreme Court is likely to pass an order on whether to refer Ayodhya land dispute case to court-appointed mediator on Tuesday, 5 March.
SC Order: Parties Have Six Weeks to Finalise Documents
Subramaniam Swamy tries to intervene, and when allowed to speak, says that any compromise between the parties will have to include a right for Hindus to pray at the birthplace of Lord Ram.
CJI Gogoi notes that the proceedings can only begin after translated documents are in place over which there is no controversy. He then begins dictating his order, in which he gives the parties six weeks to examine the translations and submit any objections.
The Chief Justice also asks the parties if they will consider mediation, but because Vaidyanathan doesn’t agree, this is not included in the order. The decision to refer the case for mediation will be taken at the next hearing.
Justice Bobde Suggests Mediation Rather Than Court Case
“Even if there is one percent chance for mediation between parties, we should give it an opportunity,” says Justice SA Bobde.
Dhavan points out that mediation was tried by the Allahabad High Court, but this wasn’t successful.
Justice Bobde responds that this has not been tried in the Supreme Court yet, and that the court is thinking of using mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure to settle the dispute between the Hindu and Muslim parties.
Rajeev Dhavan says he won’t oppose this if the judges want to try it. However, CS Vaidyanathan and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar (also appearing for one of the Hindu parties) say they don’t agree with this option.
“Mediation is not possible, not agreeable. Your Lordships may decide the matter as early as possible”, says Ranjit Kumar, according to Bar & Bench.
8-12 Weeks Requested to Review Documents
The CJI then asks Dhavan how long he needs to review the documents. Dhavan and Dushyant Dave, also representing one of the Muslim parties, say they need “8-12 weeks”.
Dispute Over Translations Could Delay Hearing
At the outset, CJI Ranjan Gogoi asked the parties if they have all had a chance to review the official translations of documents for the case. There are several thousand pages of documents which are relevant to the case, and the Chief Justice said they did not want the parties to object to the correctness of the documents later, which would delay the hearings.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for some of the Muslim parties, argues that they had not had a chance to review all the translations. Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, representing Ram Lalla, objects to this, noting that there has been enough time to review the documents. He also draws attention to the court’s order of December 2017, when the court expressed hope the parties wouldn’t ask for adjournments.
Rajeev Dhavan responds by saying there had been no opportunity to review the documents since the previous hearings had dealt with the question of whether the matter should be referred to a larger bench.
CJI Gogoi: “We are not going to waste our time if disputes are going to be raised over translations of documents.”
SC Begins Hearing Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Land Dispute Case
The Supreme Court has begun hearing the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute matter, with the five-judge Constitution bench expected to decide on the date when the hearings will start and come up with a schedule.
. Read more on India by The Quint. RSS & BJP’s Nehru-Netaji ‘Cosplay’: Irony Dies a Thousand Deaths Five cities in North East to have command centres . Read more onIndia by The Quint.
No comments:
Post a Comment