"Even If There Is Only 1% Chance Of Success, We Would Like To Try Mediation":SC [Courtroom Exchange In Ayodhya Hearing]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted 8 weeks' time to the opposite side to examine the official translations of the oral evidence filed by the state of UP besides the translated copies of the exhibits made available by the parties. Further, the five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi decided to assemble again on March 5 to consider the question of reference of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute to mediation under section 89 of the CPC, to proceed concurrently with the exercise of examination of the documents to effectively utilise this time of 8 weeks. At the threshold of the hearing on Tuesday, the Chief Justice observed, "Please don't make any prayers at this stage...We would like to read to the Ld. Counsel the copy of the report of the Secretary General, signed by the court registrar, regarding the status of the case documents, how the registry went about the order of January 10, how locks were opened, how the seals were opened, what was found..." The relevant portions of the report, as read out by the Chief Justice, highlighted that of the records received from the Allahabad High Court, not all documents are accompanied by English transcripts, and that there is no absolute compliance with Orders 8 and 19 of the Supreme Court Rules. The report also indicated the strength of the official translators in the Supreme Court registry and the time to be taken in the exercise. "Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has filed translated copies Of depositions. We presume whoever wants to rely on exhibits has given translated copies of the same...but We have no indication as to whether the translations are acceptable to all. Once the arguments begin, We don't want the content of the translations to be disputed, delaying the court proceedings...There are 4 suits. One was dismissed. There are numerous appeals...several counsel on both sides...do we understand the translations by the state of UP and by the other parties are acceptable to all? If yes, then we can proceed with the hearing...", inquired the Chief Justice. At this point, Mr. Vaidyanathan, for Ram Lalla, indicated the earlier order dated August 11, 2017 where the court had directed all concerned to file English translations of their respective exhibited documents, besides requiring the state of UP to file English transcripts of the entire oral evidence. Noting that no adjournment may be sought for this purpose, the top court had envisaged copies of these translations to be handed over to all the counsel appearing for the parties- "This was complied with and both the sides agreed to proceed on that basis" He relied on another order of February 8, 2018 directing the Registry to make available the copies of the videos to the advocates of the parties to the appeal, besides allowing the filing of documents exhibited before the Allahabad High Court, the exemption from filing official translations and for the volumes to be filed in seriatim. In respect of the books exhibited, the court had considered requiring the translation of only the first page and the portions relied upon to be furnished. Further, he drew the bench's attention to an order dated March 14, 2018, again in context of the translations. "You are trying to show that the examination has already been done? Is there a consensus that the translations are acceptable?", asked the Chief Justice. Replying in the negative, Dr. Dhawan, representing the Sunni Waqf Board, advanced that his instructions are to examine the state of UP's translations- "On the earlier occasion (on January 10), Your Lordships had insisted that it is the official translators who will do it, but they said they can only do 12 a day...We need to examine the translations to see whether there are mistakes or not..." "They were given this opportunity to examine! This exercise was done where we sat down and exchanged the documents", countered Mr. Vaidyanathan. "Don't put words in my mouth! We haven't examined UP's records! This case is of such importance where each exhibit, each deposition counts! Every time, someone can't just stand up and argue that this was done or that was done!", said Dr. Dhawan. "We may come to the conclusion that we don't want to rely on them or want to offer something else after the exercise...some exercise was undertaken earlier but then the case shifted to the question of reference (to a larger bench for the reconsideration of the 1994 Ismail Farooqui decision)...We were waiting for official translations. This penultimate exercise is needed whether they are happy or not!", he continued. At this juncture, Justice S. A. Bobde extended a clarification, "There seems to be some miscommunication. It is not something which was to be done by the Supreme Court registry. It is the translation by the state of UP which is ready, which you say your side has not checked for veracity. If you agreed with the official translations filed by UP, we could commence the hearing" ...

"Even If There Is Only 1% Chance Of Success, We Would Like To Try Mediation":SC [Courtroom Exchange In Ayodhya Hearing]

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

MEHAL JAIN

"Even If There Is Only 1% Chance Of Success, We Would Like To Try Mediation":SC [Courtroom Exchange In Ayodhya Hearing]

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers