Ayodhya hearing: Appointing retired SC judge is new initiative, but lack of clarity on 'mediation' leaves many unanswered questions

The Supreme Court decision to refer the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case to a three-member court-appointed panel for mediation makes it clear that there would be no judicial verdict on the politically and socially contentious issue before the conclusion of the 2019 parliamentary election.

The mediation process is expected to be concluded by 15 May , which again means that the outcome of mediation would be known after the General Election to Lok Sabha is over.

It should be noted that Hindu groups concerned were opposed to the mediation process as they thought it would further delay the final legal arbitration by the apex court in a dispute which is before various varied levels of administrative and judicial bodies since 1885 and before the judiciary of Independent India for the last 70 years.

Over the years, on the issue of mediation, the court itself has had a mixed position. Even the Sunni Waqf Board was opposed to mediation, so was another key party in the case, Ramlalla Virajman. Only Nirmohi Akhada was for a settlement of the case by mediation. The Sunni Waqf Board now seems to have reviewed its position and has agreed to send its representative to appear before the mediation panel. It should be noted that in October 2010, the Allahabad High Court verdict trifurcated 2.77 acres of the disputed land in equal proportions and the portion below the central dome (erstwhile Babri Masjid) under which the idol of Lord Rama is placed in a makeshift temple would be given to the Hindus.

Politically, the Congress party and its allies should be pleased with the latest turn in the case. In December 2017, when there was a perception that the Supreme Court was going to expeditiously hear the case, senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal appearing on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board argued in the court that the hearing should be deferred till July 2019 till the Lok Sabha election was over. His rationale was that the verdict will have strong political implications on the upcoming polls. Though Sibal has since then not appeared in the case, his arguments in the court still resonate in political circles.

Retired Supreme Court Justice FM Kallifulla will head the panel of mediators and spiritual guru Shri Shri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu who runs a firm called ‘Mediation Chamber’ specialising in the mediation of all kinds are members. They have been directed to conduct a mediation process with the concerned groups in Faizabad. Interestingly, Faizabad as per administrative orders of Yogi Government is now called Ayodhya.

Though the constituting a Supreme Court-appointed mediation committee headed by a retired justice is a new initiative, it leaves several questions unanswered. Will the recommendations of the mediation panel be binding on the court and to all the principal parties in the court? So far, all legal experts who appeared on various news channels have opined that the recommendations will not be binding. If its proposals are not binding then it opens a far bigger question: what purpose would this court-appointed panel achieve? Several past attempts to find a resolution to this vexed issue through mediation has failed. Whether or not this be any different this time around is anybody’s guess.

Over a period in time, particularly since BJP’s Palampur convention in 1989 and LK Advani leading the Ram Rath Yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya, the issue has become more political than religious. The Supreme Court order has kept political parties outside the purview of the mediation. Since 1989, the BJP has taken a consistent position that building a grand Ram temple at the Ram Janmabhoomi site is a matter of faith for them.

“Kasam Ram ki Khate hain mandir wahin banayegne… Ramlalla hum aayenge, mandir wahin banayege (Swear by Lord Rama, the temple will be built there… Ramlalla, we will come and build the temple there)” were the slogans which were shouted not only in VHP meetings but also at BJP meets. Though the BJP is not chanting these slogans for the past few years, these were heard again at the VHP-RSS meet in Delhi and elsewhere. How would the BJP react if the mediation committee comes with recommendations that are favourable to their stated positions?

The Narendra Modi government had recently moved the court seeking its approval to return 67 acres land outside of the disputed 2.77-acre to those who owned the land prior to its acquisition by the PV Narasimha Rao government at the Centre. The major chunk of this 67-acre land was then owned by Ramjanambhoomi Nyas. However, the court has not yet begun hearing the Centre’s petition.

All three persons in the mediation panel are from Tamil Nadu. The court, perhaps, chose all members from south India with the thought they would take a more dispassionate view on the issue than those from north India. Justice Kallifulla and Sriram Panchu’s view on the subject is not known but views of Sri Sri Ravishankar who tried to mediate with the Hindu and Muslim groups in the dispute in the past as well are well known. He has been of the view that the Ram Mandir must be built at the site which Hindus believe is the birthplace of Lord Rama as there will be bloodshed if Hindus are denied of their right.

No one is sure what would be the beginning point of the mediation committee. It has Allahabad High Court judgment before it and the arguments as made by various parties in the Supreme Court. But then the panel could also start from a clean slate. It has week’s time to decide on the modalities and the formulations to begin the process.

The early signs are, however, not very enthusiastic.