The Ayodhya mediation panel has has moved a memorandum in the Supreme Court to seek directions regarding requests made by Nirvani Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board - parties in the case - to resume mediation for the settlement of the dispute.
The panel has however clarified that the parties are not seeking to stop the Court proceedings.
It was on March 8 that the the CJI-led Constitution Bench had referred the matter to mediation by a panel of former SC judge Justice F M Kalifulla, '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 July 18, the Supreme Court had asked the mediation panel to submit by July 31 a report regarding the progress in negotiation talks. The CJI-led constitution bench had said that if the panel expressed its inability to resolve the dispute related to 2.77 acres of land through mediation, the Court will start hearing the appeals on a day to day basis.
Later, panel reported to the Court that negotiations have reached a deadlock. Based on this, the SC declared on August 3 that mediation had failed and started day to day hearing of the case from August 6.
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.
The Constitution Bench consisting of CJI Gogoi, Justices Bobde, Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer has held over twenty days of hearing in the case so far.
During the Ayodhya case hearing today, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan informed court that there are reports doing the rounds on social media that some parties have written to the CJI seeking continuation of mediation proceedings for settlement. He further asked if that is so. CJI responded saying they have not received any such letters. He further added that the bench was not interested in such things, and that Dhavan should continue arguing.