There may be a permanent solution for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute soon. The Supreme Court on 8 March referred the dispute for mediation to a three-member panel, which has been given 8 weeks to complete it.
I’m Vishnu Gopinath and this is The Big Story podcast. On this edition, we’re examining the Supreme Court’s order referring the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute for mediation and permanent solution.
The first recorded incidents of religious violence over the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute go back to 1853.
In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had ordered the site to be split into 3 parts. After 14 appeals against this verdict, the Supreme Court suspended the ruling. Now, 166 years after the first recorded clashes at the site, the dispute will, hopefully, see a permanent solution.
Listen to the podcast for the full story.
Here are the highlights of the Supreme Court’s order:
First, the court has referred the dispute for mediation and asked the panel to deliver a “permanent solution” for the dispute… in eight weeks.
Before we get into the nitty-gritty of the order, The Quint’s legal editor Vakasha Sachdev explains what mediation is and why it’s different from approaching the courts.
If the court orders a mediation procedure, the parties will then approach the court-appointed mediation panel and discuss, and hopefully reach an amicable resolution. It’s a much faster solution that often allows for both sides to voice their concerns and resolve the matter more effectively.Vakasha Sachdev, Legal Editor, The Quint
For this case, the top court has said that the mediation process will take place in UP’s Faizabad and selected retired Supreme Court Judge FM Ibrahim Kalifulla as the head of the panel.
The other members of the panel are senior advocate Sriram Panchu and spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar.
Panchu has said that the Ayodhya dispute was a “serious responsibility” given to him by the court and that he would do his best.
SC has also directed the mediation panel to start its dispute resolution proceedings in a month and wrap up the mediation process with a solution – all of it within 8 weeks.
Another important point is to note that the court has said the proceedings should be kept confidential, and that there should be no reporting of the proceedings in print or electronic media.
After all, knowing the Indian media, there’s more than a little chance that they’ll sensationalise it and help feed a polarising narrative. Even so, there is a lot of debate about whether the court can actually restrict reporting on something like this, with some arguing it may violate the right to freedom of speech.
Fortunately (or unfortunately), SC hasn’t actually passed a gag order here. Instead, it has left it to the mediators to pass any orders they think necessary to restrict media reporting on the proceedings. What they decide to do remains to be seen.
The SC has also said that the panel can co-opt more people to join as mediators, and that if the members face any difficulty, they can inform the Supreme Court registry.
The question is: How will the mediation panel resolve this centuries-old dispute?
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)