Live Updates

  • 12:17 PM IST

    Ayodhya Title Case Live Updates: Appearing for a group of Muslim petitioners, advocate Rajeev Dhavan earlier said,”Mediation must be held in camera.”

  • 12:12 PM IST

    Ayodhya Title Case Live Updates: Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said, “Parties to suggest name for mediator or panel for mediators. We intend to pass the order soon.”

  • 12:06 PM IST

  • 11:51 AM IST

    Ayodhya Title Case Live Updates: Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who is appearing for a group of Muslim petitioners said, “Muslim petitioners are agreeable to mediation and any compromise or settlement will bind parties.” He further asks the bench to frame terms for mediation.

  • 11:39 AM IST

    Ayodhya Title Case Live Updates: Snubbing the Hindu Mahasabha lawyer, Justice SA Bobde said, “Are you not pre -judging the whole thing.. are you not saying it’s a failure even before it’s attempted. We think that is not fair .. when the court is ordering a mediation we are not yet assuming somebody will give up something .. we think it’s not primarily a dispute over the 1500 yards of land. This is about sentiment or faith.. do not think we are not conscious of it or do you think you have more faith than us.”

  • 11:36 AM IST

    Ayodhya Title Case Live Updates: Justice SA Bobde proposes restrained media reportage of the case proceedings, adds, “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.”

  • 11:32 AM IST

    Ayodhya Title Case Live Updates: Speaking of the history over the decades-old dispute, Justice SA Bobde added, “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.”

  • 11:31 AM IST
    Ayodhya Title Case Live Updates: Hearing the case on Ayodhya Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute, Justice SA Bobde said, “It’s about sentiments, about religion and about faith. We are conscious of the gravity of the dispute.”

    He further added, “There need not be one mediator but a panel of mediators.”
  • 11:25 AM IST
    Ayodhya Title Case Live Updates: Hindu Mahasabha argues, “Hindus are not ready for any mediation… it’s a deity property and nobody has the right to mediate . For us it’s a sentimental issue… do not refer the matter to mediation.. we are waiting for outcome of result since 1950.”

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday may opt for court-monitored mediation in the contentious Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute. (Also read: BJP Govt Will do Whatever it Can For Ram Temple: Ram Madhav)

In the last hearing on February 26, the apex court had favoured a peaceful dialogue. Proposing mediation, Justice S A Bobde had said, “We are considering the possibility of healing relations between two communities. We, as a court, can only decide the property issue.”

The five-judge constitution bench also comprises Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer.

In fact, the suggestion came up when both the Hindu and the Muslim sides sparred over the veracity of documents translated by the Uttar Pradesh government. “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.

Lawyers of the Hindu parties had opposed the idea of mediation by saying that such attempts had failed in the past, while the Muslim parties’ lawyers had approved of it if a regular hearing on the matter went on simultaneously.

The petition challenging the 2010 judgment by Allahabad High Court has been pending for almost nine years. The court had ordered that the 2.77 acres of the disputed land be divided equally among the three parties _ the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhada and Ram Lalla.

The five-judge bench, which posted the main matter for hearing after eight weeks, said it wanted to explore the possibility of mediation to utilise the time till the next date of hearing.

The bench was re-constituted on January 25 as Justice U U Lalit, who was a member of the earlier bench, had recused himself from hearing the matter. When the new bench was constituted, Justice N V Ramana was excluded from the re-constituted bench.