Ayodhya Case: Supreme Court order on mediation today

The Supreme Court would on Friday pronounce its order on whether the vexed Ayodhya dispute related to Ram temple and Babri Masjid can be referred for negotiation and who can be appointed as negotiators to talk to the parties for amicable resolution of the matter.

A five-judge Constitution bench presided over by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had on Wednesday reserved its order on the subject, even though the reservations were expressed by Uttar Pradesh government and Hindu sides, except 'Nirmohi Akhara', on carrying out negotiation.

The court, however, had remained firm with the proposition mooted by the bench itself. The court had indicated it can exercise power under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code to direct the parties to go for alternate dispute resolution mechanism.

"We understand this is a dispute about sentiments and faith. It is not a dispute upon a piece of land. We are conscious of the gravity of the dispute and its impact on the body politic. It is about heart and mind and healing of relation," the bench had said as it heard arguments opposing any negotiation.

The Hindu sides, led by senior advocates C S Vaidyanathan and Ranjit Kumar, had contended the negotiations had failed twice in the past. There was little possibility of any positive outcome, they said.

"In a case like this, related to Ram Janmabhumi, faith and belief cannot be negotiated. What can be considered is an alternative place for a mosque, which can be built by crowdfunding. Nobody can agree to any negotiation on Ram Janmabhumi," they had said.

The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, for its part, asked the parties to furnish the names of persons who could be appointed as negotiators.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Muslim sides, said that they were open to negotiation.

A batch of appeals filed against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement is pending before the court. The court had earlier pointed out the case involving voluminous documents was yet not mature enough to conduct hearings.