Apex court offers an idea, but will it workIJ
It's common for the Supreme Court to suggest that litigating parties settle their disputes out of the court, especially when those relate to sensitive issues. But it's rare for judges to offer themselves as ‘mediators' in such out-of-court rapprochement. Therefore, Chief Justice of India JS Khehar's suggestion on Tuesday that he was willing to broker an extra-judicial agreement on the Ayodhya Ram temple-mosque title dispute and recuse from hearing the case till such time he remains involved, took everyone by surprise. Even those who believed that nothing could be gained through consultations (since similar past attempts had failed miserably), such as the Babri Masjid Action Committee and the Sunni Waqf Board, could not outright reject the suggestion. At the very least, the Chief Justice of India's idea opens a window — howsoever tentative — of opportunity to resolve the decades-old dispute in an amicable manner. The court believes that while it cannot wash its hands of a verdict since the matter is before the Bench, it would be preferable if the issue is settled through mutual consent outside the court. It also demonstrates the court's sentiment that the matter cannot be allowed to linger for long, given the divide it has created over the years in society and politics. It also acknowledges that an early resolution out of the court is needed because the court itself cannot decide the issue “in a huff”. The question now is: Will the warring parties, both from the mosque and the temple side, take the Chief Justice of India's offer on boardIJ The Bharatiya Janata Party and its parent organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, have welcomed the suggestion, and they appear to be willing to try out this mode as well. This conforms to their oft-stated position that the issue can be settled either through mutual agreement or by a court order. All parties have agreed to abide by the court verdict — as and when it comes. If they can also agree to open fresh round of talks in an attempt to bring closure, there would be nothing like it.
Unfortunately, though, many layers of complexity have got added to the issue over the decades of litigation. It's now no longer just a case of dispute over title of the land but one relating to tolerance, secularism, religious sentiment. It's these factors which have made the apex court's task that much more difficult. The Allahabad High Court order of September 2010 — which divided the disputed property into three parts and gave one each to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram lalla (which the court had recognised as a ‘legal entity' for case purposes) — had been summarily and promptly rejected by the parties concerned. They argued that the issue was not that of a property dispute, nor had the litigants demanded equitable shares. The matter thereafter came to the Supreme Court, where it remains pending. The Chief Justice of India told senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who asked for an early hearing of the ongoing case, to explore the idea of out-of-court consultations. But critics are wondering why Swamy, who is not among the original petitioners, should be given such heft. This is besides the main issue, though. If he, or anybody else, can help in resolving the matter, why should anybody have a problemIJ A new mindset is the need of the hour.