Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: When Nirmohi Akhara submitted that being the ‘shebait’ (devotee), only its lawsuit was maintainable and the case filed by deity Ram Lalla Virajman, through next friend Deoki Nandan Agrawal, should not be allowed, the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ said that the Akhara is “unnecessarily” opposing the plea of deity Ram Lalla for the title of disputed Ramjanam Bhoomi-Babri Masjid land as both the parties will “stand” or “fall” together. It said,

“There is no conflict between your (Akhara’s) suit and the suit filed by plaintiff number 1 (Ram Lalla)… Even if the suit of plaintiff (deity and others) is allowed, your right as ‘shebait’ stands.”

The bench asked senior advocate Sushil Jain, appearing for Nirmohi Akhara, that if the lawsuit of the deity was disallowed then for whom will the Akhara be ‘shebait’ of. It said,

“You cannot be the ‘shebait’ of the mosque. If your suit succeeds, it will be adverse to the deity.”

Sushil Jain, however, said the Akhara was not saying anything against the deity and moreover, the law is now well settled that the deity need not be a party in all the lawsuits and can be represented through ‘shebait’. He argued,

“A shebait can maintain the suit on behalf of the deity in its own name and need not implead the deity as a party.”

He submitted that though an idol is certainly a “juristic person”, it is permanently “linked” with the ‘shebait’ which can institute and maintain the lawsuits.

On this the bench said if a third party takes possession of the land of the deity then the ‘shebait’ may institute the lawsuit, but if there was a “vital interest” was involved, then the deity itself can initiate the lawsuits. Jain, however, said that the deity was not required to be made the party as the ‘shebait’ can do the needful. He further argued that the ‘shebait’ is ousted only when it is proved that it was acting against the interest of the deity and here, the Akhara is “claiming relief” for ‘Ram Lalla’ and there was “no conflict of interest”.

A 5-judge bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after it had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

(Source: FP)


More from the day-to-day hearing in Ayodhya Title Dispute:

No Muslim has entered the disputed land since 1934: Nirmohi Akhara

SC seeks evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara

Both Hindus & Muslims have always called the disputed site a ‘Janmasthana’: Ram Lalla’s counsel

SC rejects Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan’s plea against 5-days a week hearing

Arguments advanced on whether there was an existing temple at the disputed site

Court shouldn’t go beyond rationality of belief of Ayodhya being Lord Ram’s birthplace: Ram Lalla’s counsel

Excavations show that a massive Lord Ram temple existed at the disputed site: Ram Lalla’s counsel

Babri Masjid was built either on the ruins of Ram Mandir or by pulling it down: Ram Lalla’s counsel

There was a temple in the inner courtyard of the disputed site: Nirmohi Akhara

Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: Senior counsel appearing for Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, told the Supreme Court that there was a temple in the inner courtyard of the disputed site.
Senior Advocate S K Jain told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that Muslims were not allowed to enter the temple area.

“There was no mosque there. As per the revenue records, it can be said that the land was in possession of the Nirmohi Akhara,”

The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after it had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

(Source: ANI)


More from the day-to-day hearing in Ayodhya Title Dispute:

No Muslim has entered the disputed land since 1934: Nirmohi Akhara

SC seeks evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara

Both Hindus & Muslims have always called the disputed site a ‘Janmasthana’: Ram Lalla’s counsel

SC rejects Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan’s plea against 5-days a week hearing

Arguments advanced on whether there was an existing temple at the disputed site

Court shouldn’t go beyond rationality of belief of Ayodhya being Lord Ram’s birthplace: Ram Lalla’s counsel

Excavations show that a massive Lord Ram temple existed at the disputed site: Ram Lalla’s counsel

Babri Masjid was built either on the ruins of Ram Mandir or by pulling it down: Ram Lalla’s counsel

Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: On the 8th Day of the Ayodhya Title dispute hearing, Ram Lalla’s counsel, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, told the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ that the disputed structure (mosque) was put in place either on the ruins of the temple or by pulling it down.

“Pillar bases found by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) have established the existence of a huge structure at the site of Babri Masjid. Other evidence revealed that it was a Hindu religious structure,”

The counsel relied on a document by the agency, which stated that a stone slab from the 12th century was recovered which had verses that spoke of King Govind Chandra, the king of a kingdom whose capital was Ayodhya.

“The verses found on the stone made it clear that there was a big Vishnu temple at that place and the ASI in the excavation had found the remains of that temple,”

The disputed site is considered to be Lord Ram’s Janmabhoomi (birthplace) and it has been the faith and belief of Hindus that make them visit the Ram janmabhoomi for darshan, the counsel added. He also read out the verbatim of the Muslim witnesses collated by him.

“The Muslim witness stated that if the mosque was built after the demolition of a temple, they will not consider it a mosque. He said that the mosque cannot be built on a forcibly occupied place,”

Vaidyanathan said that the Muslim side, including Sunni Wakf Board and others, had earlier said that there was no such pre-existing structure, but later changed their stand and said that the Islamic structure existed beneath Babri Masjid.

A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after it had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

(Source: ANI)


More from the day-to-day hearing in Ayodhya Title Dispute:

No Muslim has entered the disputed land since 1934: Nirmohi Akhara

SC seeks evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara

Both Hindus & Muslims have always called the disputed site a ‘Janmasthana’: Ram Lalla’s counsel

SC rejects Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan’s plea against 5-days a week hearing

Arguments advanced on whether there was an existing temple at the disputed site

Court shouldn’t go beyond rationality of belief of Ayodhya being Lord Ram’s birthplace: Ram Lalla’s counsel

Excavations show that a massive Lord Ram temple existed at the disputed site: Ram Lalla’s counsel

Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: On the 7th Day of the Ayodhya Title dispute hearing, Ram Lalla’s counsel, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, told the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ that

“a “massive” temple of Lord Ram, dating back to the second century BC (Before Christ), existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya before the construction of Babri Masjid.”

He referred to the report of a court commissioner, appointed to inspect the site in 1950, and also relied upon the findings of the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to buttress its claim over the disputed 2.77-acre land in Uttar Pradesh’s Ayodhya. He submitted that according to the ASI report, there “existed a massive, pillar-based structure dating back to the second century BC and the ASI survey was conclusive about there being a ‘mandap’ at the site with pillars“.

The senior lawyer extensively referred to various pictures and reports, including the ASI’s findings on the excavated materials from the disputed site, and said, however, there was no such material to show that it was a temple of only Lord Ram. But the pictures of the deities, including those of Lord Shiva, sculptures on the pillars of “Garuda” flanked by lions and the images of lotus amply indicated that it was a temple and moreover, these things were not found in mosques.

“Keeping in mind the faith of Hindus and preponderance of probability, it would indicate that this was a temple of Lord Ram. … Along with the massive old structure, other materials found during excavation suggested that it was a temple,”

Referring to the Allahabad High Court order, he said one of the judges, Justice S U Khan, did not deal with the ASI report in his judgment and erroneously concluded that the mosque came up on a vacant land and on the ruins of a temple, while the other two judges took note of the report, which said there was a temple where the mosque came up.

When the bench noticed that the question before it was not about the structure but whether it was of religious nature before the mosque was built there, the counsel said,

“It was a temple where the public had access. The basic foundation was the same, while the structure was rebuilt. The underlying foundation never changed. There was a total of 17 rows of pillar bases and each row had five pillars,”

On this the bench asked,

“You also have a grave here. How would you interpret this,”

To this the counsel responded that the grave belonged to a much later period. He also added that there were several layers of excavations and the grave was not found during the deep excavation.

On the issue of “namaz” being offered at the disputed site in the past, Vaidyanathan said,

“Offering prayers cannot mean valid possession unless you already own it. If prayer is offered on the street, it cannot be a proof to own it,”

The bench said the question was whether the disputed structure was “built as a mosque or being used as a mosque“. On this the Counsel said,

“No mosque will ordinarily contain pillars of this nature,”

He said during the 1950 inspection itself, it was very clear that there were various “structures, images” that belied the claim that it was a mosque.

A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after it had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

(Source: PTI)


More from the day-to-day hearing in Ayodhya Title Dispute:

No Muslim has entered the disputed land since 1934: Nirmohi Akhara

SC seeks evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara

Both Hindus & Muslims have always called the disputed site a ‘Janmasthana’: Ram Lalla’s counsel

SC rejects Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan’s plea against 5-days a week hearing

Arguments advanced on whether there was an existing temple at the disputed site

Court shouldn’t go beyond rationality of belief of Ayodhya being Lord Ram’s birthplace: Ram Lalla’s counsel

Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: On Day 6 of the Ayodhya Title dispute hearing, Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing for deity Ram Lalla, told the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ that

“it is the belief of Hindus that Ayodhya is Lord Ram’s birthplace and the court should not go beyond to see how rational it is.”

He also told the Court that the birthplace of Lord Ram was also a deity and Muslims cannot claim right over the 2.77-acre disputed land as any division of the property would amount to “destruction” and “mutilation” of the deity itself.

The Court had asked if Hindus and Muslims jointly possessed the disputed site, Muslims could be ousted from it.

Vaidyanathan also submitted before the Court that the English writer William Foster published a book “Early Travels in India” which describes Ayodhya and building of Ram temple.

The Supreme Court said one of the earliest European geographers who write about India Joseph Tiefenthaler seems to suggest that Ram temple was demolished by Aurangzeb. On this, Vaidyanathan said Tiefenthaler refers to two accounts one of demolition by Aurangzeb and second by Babur, but it is clear it was demolished before 1786.

“Who demolished the temple wouldn’t matter for us as it proves that the temple existed. What is important about the document is that it identifies the Janmasthan and that a mosque was put up at the site of the Ram temple.”

On Court’s question when was the temple called Babri Masjid came into existence, Vaidyanathan said:

“In the 19th century it was called Babri Masjid. Before that, there was nothing to prove or show it was called Babri Masjid. Before 1786 there is no document to show this was known as Babri Masjid.”

A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after it had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

(Source: ANI & The Hindu)


More from the day-to-day hearing:

No Muslim has entered the disputed land since 1934: Nirmohi Akhara

SC seeks evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara

Both Hindus & Muslims have always called the disputed site a ‘Janmasthana’: Ram Lalla’s counsel

SC rejects Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan’s plea against 5-days a week hearing

Arguments advanced on whether there was an existing temple at the disputed site

Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: On the 5th Day of the Ayodhya Title dispute hearing, arguments on whether a temple existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya were presented before the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ.

Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman, advanced arguments on whether there was an existing temple over which the mosque came up, before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

Three judges of the Allahabad High Court had held that there was a temple at the disputed site, Vaidyanathan told the bench also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.

“Justice SU Khan of the high court had said that the mosque was built on the ruins of the temple,”

Senior advocate K Parasaran, also appearing for deity ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’ told the court that it must do “full and complete justice” in all matters before it.

The bench had on Friday last asked as to whether anyone from the ‘Raghuvansha’ (descendants of Lord Ram) dynasty still resides in Ayodhya.

A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after it had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

(Source: PTI)


More from the day-to-day hearing:

No Muslim has entered the disputed land since 1934: Nirmohi Akhara

SC seeks evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara

Both Hindus & Muslims have always called the disputed site a ‘Janmasthana’: Ram Lalla’s counsel

SC rejects Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan’s plea against 5-days a week hearing

Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court:  On the fourth day of hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case, the counsel appearing for one of the Muslim parties, raised objection over the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeals on five days in a week rather than three. The Court, however, refused  to conduct a 3-days a week hearing and said,

“if you need a break, we can give you when you argue or submit your contentions before us in the case.”

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan had told the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ that its decision to hear the case five days in a week is “inhuman”.

“We will not be able to assist the court. Hearing cannot be rushed through. It is simply not possible. I will be forced to leave this case. I am being put to torture because of this case,”

On the the CJI said,

“We have heard your grievance and will inform you about it soon,”

The bench had, on August 8, said that it will hear the Ayodhya title dispute case five days in the week — from Monday to
Friday. It is a deviation from the normal rules as the Constitution bench normally hears the matters only from Tuesday to Thursday. The Court only hears fresh or miscellaneous matters on Monday and Friday.

A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after it had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

(Source: ANI)


More from the day-to-day hearing:

No Muslim has entered the disputed land since 1934: Nirmohi Akhara

SC seeks evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara

Both Hindus & Muslims have always called the disputed site a ‘Janmasthana’: Ram Lalla’s counsel

Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: Senior Advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the Ram Lalla, one of the parties in title dispute case, has told the Supreme Court that Lord Ram’s birth place need not be the exact spot but could also mean surrounding areas.

“Janmasthan need not be the exact spot but can also mean surrounding areas,”

Parasaran told the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ that there was no dispute that the disputed site is the “Janmasthana” (birthplace). He maintained that both Hindus and Muslims have always called it a Janmasthana.

The counsel further contended that the high court had ordered partition of the disputed properties but no one had sought it.

“The rights of the entire area, that is 2.77 acres as a whole, had to be decided but the high court divided the property,”

A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after it had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

(Source: ANI)


More from the day-to-day hearing:

No Muslim has entered the disputed land since 1934: Nirmohi Akhara

SC seeks evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara

Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Court has sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, after it contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982.

Senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Akhara, told the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, Jof that the obstruction to worship and prayer is what forced them to file the civil suits.

“Not just my right of possession but my right of management has also been taken away … There are some property rights which the Shebiat (temple custodian-priest) enjoys. It is not just office but proprietary rights are blended with it. These Shebiats are more than mere managers. They also have proprietary rights,”

The Court clarified that Section 142 of the Limitation Act speaks of possession of the immovable property but does not talk about management and hence the possession of property and management of worship are two different things. Yesterday, the Akhara had told the top court that Muslims were not allowed to enter the temple gate since 1934 and it is in their possession since then.

The counsel asserted that the inner courtyard, which includes Sita Rasoi, Bhandar Grih and a place known as “Janamasthan” are in the possession of the Akhara.

A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after it had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

(Source: ANI)


More from the day-to-day hearing:

No Muslim has entered the disputed land since 1934: Nirmohi Akhara

Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: On Day 1 of the day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya land dispute, Nirmohi Akhara, told the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ that Muslims were not allowed to enter the temple gate since 1934 and it is in their possession since then.

Senior advocate Sushil Jain, appearing on behalf of the Nirmohi Akhara, told the bench that the suit was filed by his client for the belonging, possession and management rights.

“The dome structure in the inner courtyard belongs to the Nirmohi Akhara. They have been wrongfully deprived of the charge and management of the temple,”

The counsel asserted that the inner courtyard, which includes Sita Rasoi, Bhandar Grih, and a place known as “Janam Asthan”, are in the possession of the Akhara.

“The idols were placed inside the mosque on the intervening night of December 22-23, 1949. The dispute for Nirmohi Akhara is for the inner courtyard and not the outer courtyard,”

He further contended that the claim over the disputed land was filed by the Nirmohi Akhara in 1934, whereas Sunni Waqf Board filed the suit in 1961.

Earlier in the day, the Court refused live streaming or audio/video recording of the proceedings due to non-feasibility of the same at the moment. KN Govindacharya had, on 05.08.2019, sought live streaming and recording of the proceedings in the Ayodhya case. He submitted that for the time being, at least the recording of proceedings can be done and at the later stage, live streaming could be considered. Govindacharya, in his petition, asserted that the public are being denied their right to access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after it had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

(Source: ANI)


Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court:  The Court has agreed to consider the live streaming of the proceeding in the Ayodhya land dispute case after deliberation and institutional decision-making.

A bench headed by Justice S A Bobde said that it would look into the administrative side of the matter after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of former RSS idealogue KN Govindacharya, mentioned the petition
before it, seeking live streaming and recording of the proceedings in the Ayodhya case. He submitted that for the time being, at least the recording of proceedings can be done and at the later stage, live streaming could be considered. Govindacharya, in his petition, asserted that the public are being denied their right to access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The plea stated

“live streaming of the Ayodhya case is required considering the fact that in the absence of live streaming of proceedings of this Court, the public are also being denied their right to know as per Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”

It further said,

“This Court has already held that ‘right of access to justice flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep, would be meaningful only if the public get access to the proceedings as it would unfold before the courts and in particular, opportunity to witness live proceedings in respect of matters having an impact on the public at large or on a section of people,”

The Supreme Court had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.


Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: After the the Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla led Mediation Committee submitted the mediation report before the  5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ, the Court observed that the mediation panel has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter and it would, hence, hold day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya dispute from August 6.

“The mediation proceedings have not resulted in any final settlement. We, therefore, have to proceed with the hearing of the cases/appeals, which will commence on and from 6.8.2019.”

The Court had, on March 8, referred the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, famously known as the Ayodhya Dispute, to a Court-monitored Mediation. It said:

“Notwithstanding the lack of consensus between the parties in the matter we are of the view that an attempt should be made to settle the dispute by mediation.”

The 3-member committee also consisted of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu.

[M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 958, order dated 02.08.2019]


Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Cabinet DecisionsLegislation Updates

Union Cabinet has approved the signing of the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements (UNISA) resulting from mediation by the Republic of India scheduled to be held at Singapore on 7-08-2019, or at United Nations Headquarters.

Benefit:

Signing of the Convention will boost the confidence of the investors and shall provide a positive signal to foreign investors about India’s commitment to adhere to international practice on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

Initiatives to promote ADR Mechanisms:

In order to encourage international commercial arbitration in India, to evolve a comprehensive ecosystem of arbitration the Government is establishing the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre (NDIAC) as a statutory body. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, has been further amended and legislative exercise to further amend the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is currently underway. These initiatives are being taken with a view to encourage the settlement of commercial disputes, domestic and international, in India through ADR Mechanism of Arbitration, Conciliation and Mediation. A new Chapter (IIIA) has been inserted in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, for mandatory pre-institution mediation and settlement in a certain category of cases. Therefore, the provisions of the ‘Convention’ are in line with the domestic laws and the efforts made to strengthen Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.

Background:

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (“the Convention”) on 20th December 2018. The General Assembly authorized that the Convention will open for signature at a signing ceremony to be held on 7thAugust 2019 in Singapore and will be known as the “Singapore Convention on Mediation” (the Convention).

The Convention provides a uniform and efficient framework for the enforcement of international settlement agreements resulting from mediation and for allowing parties to invoke such agreements, akin to the framework that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958) (the “New York Convention”) provides for arbitral awards. The Convention defines two additional grounds upon which a court may, on its own motion, refuse to grant relief. Those grounds relate to the fact that a dispute would not be capable of settlement by mediation or would be contrary to public policy.


Press Release dt. [Source: PIB]

Cabinet

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ has asked the Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla led Mediation Committee to submit the outcome of the mediation proceedings as on 31.7.2019 by 1.8.2019.

 

Pursuant to the order dated 11.7.2019, Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla had submitted a report before the Court but since the Court had ordered that the proceedings of mediation will confidential, the bench refused to disclose the contents of the report. However, taking into account what has been brought to its notice by the said report, the Court fixed the daily hearing of the cases from 2.8.2019.

[M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 844, order dated 11.07.2019]


Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ has asked Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, the Chairman of the Mediation Committee, to inform it the progress of mediation till date and the stage at which the said process is presently at, latest by 18th July, 2019. The Court said that it will accordingly pass further orders on July 18.

It also made clear,

“if this Court comes to a conclusion that, having regard to the report of Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, the mediation proceedings should be ordered to be concluded, the Court will do so and order for commencement of the hearing of the appeals before it, tentatively, on and from 25th July, 2019, which hearings, if required, will be conducted on day-to-day basis.”

On March 8, the Court had referred the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, famously known as the Ayodhya Dispute, to a Court-monitored Mediation.

On May 7, Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, a former Judge of this Court, submitted a report requesting for extension of time to complete the proceedings. Time was granted by this Court by its order dated 10th May, 2019, up to 15th August, 2019.

[M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 844, order dated 11.07.2019]


Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya  title dispute case, has filed an application in the Supreme Court, opposing the Centre’s plea to return to the original owners excess land acquired around the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site.

“The government cannot get back the land to give it to who they want. Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas cannot be given a majority of the land,”

The lawyer appearing for the Akhara said that the acquisition of the land by the government had led to the destruction of several temples managed by the Akhara. The Akhara has pleaded to the court to decide the title dispute.

The central government had in January this year filed a petition seeking modification of the court’s 2003 order to allow it to return the “excess/superfluous land” out of the 67.703 acres acquired in Ayodhya to its original owners including Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas. The government had been directed by the court to maintain “status quo” with regard to entire land including the non-disputed acquired areas.

(Source: ANI)


Also read

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The bench of SA Bobde and Abhay Manohar Sapre has appointed Senior Advocate PS Narsimha  as a mediator in all the matters relating to BCCI pending before the Court. Narsimha was the amicus curiae in the said matter. before being appointed as the mediator.

Narsimha will hear grievances of state associations regarding the non-release of funds. He will then make recommendations to CoA. and make recommendations to the Committee of Administration.

The Court said that if any party is not satisfied with the outcome of the mediation, it can come to Court.

(Source: ANI)

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ has referred the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, famously known as the Ayodhya Dispute, to a Court-monitored Mediation. It said:

“Notwithstanding the lack of consensus between the parties in the matter we are of the view that an attempt should be made to settle the dispute by mediation.”

Stating that there is no legal impediment to making a reference to mediation for a possible settlement of the disputes arising out of the appeals, the Court said that whether Order 1 rule 8 CPC and Order XXIII rule 3-B of the CPC would apply in the event parties arrive at a settlement/compromise in the mediation proceedings is a matter left open to be decided at the appropriate stage.

Panel of Mediators:

  1. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India – Chairman
  2. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar – Member
  3. Shri Sriram Panchu, Senior Advocate – Member

The members are at liberty to co-opt other members of the Panel.

Where and how:

The proceedings will take place and Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh. The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to provide mediators all the facilities in Faizabad. Mediators can seek further legal assistance as and when required. The proceedings will be held in-camera.

Time-frame:

The mediation process is expected to commence within a week and the mediators have to send a report of the progress of the mediation to the Court within four weeks of the commencement of the process.

Confidentiality of the proceedings:

The Court said that the mediation proceedings should be conducted with utmost confidentiality so as to ensure its success which can only be safeguarded by directing that the proceedings of mediation and the views expressed therein by any of the parties including the learned Mediators shall be kept confidential and shall not be revealed to any other person. The Court further said:

“while the mediation proceedings are being carried out, there ought not to be any reporting of the said proceedings either in the print or in the electronic media. However, we refrain from passing any specific order at this stage and instead empower the learned mediators to pass necessary orders in writing, if so required, to restrain publication of the details of the mediation proceedings.”

In it’s order dated 26.02.2019, the Court has said that:

“the mediation suggested is only to effectively utilize the time of eight weeks that would be taken to make the cases ready for hearing.”

Reserving it’s order on 06.03.2019, the Court had said:

“Even if there is one percent chance, it should be explored.”

[M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 342, order dated 08.03.2019]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ has said that it will ‘soon’ pass the order on whether the Ayodhya dispute will be referred to a Court appointed mediation for ‘permanent solution’.

The Court has asked the parties to suggest the name of a mediator or a panel of mediators. It said:

“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 in on.”

Considering the possibility of ‘healing relations’, the Court said:

“Even if there is one percent chance, it should be explored.”

In it’s order dated 26.02.2019, the Court has said that:

“the mediation suggested is only to effectively utilize the time of eight weeks that would be taken to make the cases ready for hearing.”

(With inputs from ANI)

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the issue relating to custody of a child where the question was as to whether the Counsellor’s report furnished in the course of mediation proceedings or the Mediator’s report in case of mediation, when the process fails, can be used by either of the parties during trial, the bench of Abhay Manohar Sapre and UU Lalit, JJ held:

“Complete adherence to confidentiality would absolutely be correct in normal matters where the role of the court is purely of an adjudicator. But such an approach may not essentially be conducive when the court is called upon and expected to discharge its role in the capacity as parens patriae and is concerned with the welfare of a child.”

On general rule of confidentiality in Mediation:

It is true that the process of mediation is founded on the element of confidentiality. In the process, the parties may make statements which they otherwise they would not have made while the matter was pending adjudication before a court of law. Such statements which are essentially made in order to see if there could be a settlement, ought not to be used against the maker of such statements in case at a later point the attempts at mediation completely fail. If the statements are allowed to be used at subsequent stages, the element of confidence which is essential for healthy mediation/conciliation would be completely lost.

On exception in issue relating to custody of a child:

The Court said that in order to reach correct conclusion, the court may interview the child or may depend upon the analysis of an expert who may spend some more time with the child and gauge the upbringing, personality, desires or mental frame of the child and render assistance to the court. It is precisely for this reason that the element of confidentiality which is otherwise the basic foundation of mediation/conciliation, to a certain extent, is departed from in Sub-Rule (viii) of Rule 8 of the Family Court Rules.

Statements made by the parents during the course of mediation may not be relied upon on the ground of confidentiality but natural responses and statements made by the minor to the Counsellor would certainly afford a chance to decide what is in the best interest of the child as a child may respond naturally and spontaneously in its interactions with the Counsellor, who is professionally trained to make the child feel comfortable. Stating that record of such interaction may afford valuable inputs to the Court in discharge of its duties in parens patriae jurisdiction, the Court said:

“The intention is clear that the normal principle of confidentiality will not apply in matters concerning custody or guardianship issues and the Court, in the best interest of the child, must be equipped with all the material touching upon relevant issues in order to render complete justice.”

[Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 211, decided on 15.02.2019]