NEW DELHI: With the Supreme Court on Friday ordering mediation in the Ayodhya land dispute, the nature of the case has taken a new turn. From being termed as a mere land dispute, it has now been labelled as a matter of sentiment of the people.
In February 2018, when the case first came up before then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, he remarked that the case was essentially a “title suit” and would be dealt with as such.
“We are treating this case as a land dispute. There are appeals and cross-appeals before us and we are going to deal with it,” Misra said.
The observation from the bench at that time meant that the case, with tremendous political, religious and social significance, would be treated as a dispute over 2.7 acres of land in Ayodhya when the court next heard the case.
At that time, the court had also expressed its inability to facilitate an outside settlement, saying it was up to the parties involved.
“We can’t ask anyone to settle and we can’t say no to settlement. If lawyers of both sides stand up and tell us they have settled the issue, we will record it. We can’t appoint or suggest anyone for settlement. How can we do this in a case like this?” the court said.
After the retirement of Justice Misra, however, things took a completely new turn. And now a new five-judge constitution bench has ordered mediation, something the earlier bench had ruled out.
Earlier this week, during a hearing in the case, Justice S A Bobde said, “It is not only about property. It is about mind, heart and healing, if possible.”
He emphasised that this is a representative suit, involving people from two communities, and hence, mediation would be as good as a court decree.
The SC is hearing an appeal against the September 2010 Allahabad High Court order directing a three-way division of the disputed land.
Media reporting
The apex court, in its order on mediation, said, “While the mediation proceedings are being carried out, there ought not to be any reporting of the said proceedings in the print or in the electronic media. However, we refrain from passing any specific order at this stage and instead empower the mediators to pass necessary orders, if so required, to restrain publication of the details of the mediation proceedings.”
