Top Stories

Ayodhya-Babri Title Dispute : Plaintiff Seeks Early Hearing Of Appeals In SC Citing Lack Of Progress In Mediation

Live Law News Network
9 July 2019 6:13 AM GMT
Ayodhya-Babri Title Dispute : Plaintiff Seeks Early Hearing Of Appeals In SC Citing Lack Of Progress In Mediation
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The plaintiff in the first suit in the Ayodhya-Babri title dispute case, Gopal Singh Visharad, made a mention before the Chief Justice on Tuesday for early hearing of the appeals.

Senior Advocate P S Narasimha made the request citing the reason that "no progress is made in the mediation even after the first round".

On this, CJI Gogoi asked the counsel to file appropriate application for early hearing of the matter.

On March 8, the CJI-led Constitution Bench had referred the matter to mediation by a panel of former SC judge Justice F M Khalifulla, 'Art of Living' founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Senior Advocate and acclaimed mediator Sriram Panchu.  The mediation was directed to be held at Faizabad in UP, where the site of dispute is located.

On May 10, the Court had extended the time for completion of mediation till August 15.

The reference to mediation was made in a bunch of appeals against the 2010 verdict of Allahabad High Court which ruled that the 2.77 acres of Ayodhya land be divided into 3 parts, with 1/3 going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha for the construction of the Ram temple, 1/3 going to the Islamic Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining 1/3 going to a Hindu religious denomination Nirmohi Akhara.

By a 2:1 majority, the HC bench of Justices S.U. Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D.V. Sharma held that the portion under the central dome of the demolished three-dome structure where the idol of Ram Lalla had been kept in a makeshift temple was the birthplace of Lord Rama "as per faith and belief of the Hindus."

In his dissenting judgment, Justice Sharma categorically stated that "the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram" and held that Hindus had exclusive rights over the disputed site.

In the proceedings before SC, the Hindu groups had opposed the reference to mediation. They submitted that the matter was not a mere property dispute, but was concerning faith and sentiments.

On the other hand, Muslim groups expressed their willingness to participate in mediation.


Next Story