Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute: Hindu Mahasabha suggests three mediators in Ayodhya case

New Delhi: After the Supreme Court asked the parties in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case to suggest the name of a mediator or panel of mediators, Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha (ABHP) on Wednesday suggested three names for mediators— former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, former CJI Jagdish Singh Khehar and former SC Judge AK Patnaik. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the parties concerned could suggest the name of a mediator or panel of mediators who could be considered if it decides to refer the matter for mediation. Earlier on Wednesday, the Supreme Court reserved its order on the issue of referring Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case to court-appointed and monitored mediation for a “permanent solution”. [caption id=“attachment_4245003” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Representational image. AFP[/caption] A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, “We intend to pass the order soon.” After the hearing, Vishnu Shankar Jain, the lawyer of Hindu Mahasabha, said, “The Supreme Court reserved the order on mediation. The Hindu Mahasabha has taken a clear stand on that mediation cannot happen since it is Lord Ram’s land and public notice has to be issued. While (advocate) Rajeev Dhavan and Nirmohi Akhada agreed on mediation, other Hindu parties, including Hindu Mahasabha and Ram Lalla Virajmaan, clearly stated that mediation should not be attempted.” “Justice Bobde had said that this is a matter of faith for the people. If a public notice is issued, then every individual will be called for mediation and the case could be further delayed,” he added. On 26 February, the bench had suggested an amicable resolution in the case through mediation and reserved its order for 6 March. The bench, which also comprised justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, had told the parties, “We’re seriously giving a chance for mediation.” During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Bobde 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 is on.” While Muslim side and Nimrohi Akhada from the Hindu side in the case agreed for mediation, the counsel appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha and Mahant Suresh Das were opposed to it saying court-appointed mediation had failed on earlier occasions. The bench had recorded that apart from Nirmohi Akhada, Hindu sides in the case were not agreeable to mediation and that it could invoke its power under Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code for alternate dispute mechanism. “We are considering a possibility of healing relationship,” the bench had observed. There are fourteen appeals before the top court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment trifurcating the disputed site at Ayodhya for Ram Lalla, Nimrohi Akhara and the original Muslim litigant. Several other appeals have also been filed in the court relating to the issue.