Ram Mandir case mediation a sterile exercise, says Subramanian Swamy – Team PGurus

Subramanian Swamy

PGURUSThe Supreme Court is expected to pass an order on mediation if any needed soon and continuation with the same bench or other bench on Subramanian Swamy’s petition for fundamental right to pray. – Team PGurus

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy on March 7th said that the demand for mediation in the Ayodhya case is just a sterile exercise and at the most is only limited to the compensation to the parties in the decades-long pending title case and it is up to the Government, who took over the entire land to decide whom to give the land for construction of Ram Mandir. He was talking to media, reiterating his arguments presented before the apex court.

While submitting his detailed written submission, Subramanian Swamy told the Bench that the Central Government has the right to give away land to whosoever it wants after paying compensation to the others. He said the mediation process can’t solve the focal issue and it can only help in deciding compensation packages to the parties in the ongoing title case.  “P.V. Narasimha Rao Government had in 1994 made a commitment to the apex court that if ever any evidence was found that there was a temple, the land will be given for temple construction,” said Swamy.

Subramanian Swamy’s detailed written submission to the apex court is published below this report. After hearing all parties, Supreme Court said it will pass orders on whether to refer the Ayodhya land dispute case for mediation, underlining that it has no control over what Mughal ruler Babar did and is only concerned with resolving the present situation. The top court said it thinks that primarily the issue is not about 1,500 square feet land, but about religious sentiments. The Court order also said that they will also pass an order whether Subramanian Swamy’s writ petition demanding the fundamental right to pray at Ayodhya’s Ram Mandir will be heard by this bench or other smaller bench. Meanwhile, the apex court had already allotted eight weeks to settle the translation of documents in the main title challenging case.

The five-Judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, which reserved verdict on referring the matter for mediation, said that it is conscious of the impact of the issue on “public sentiment” and on “body politic”. “Arguments on the issue of reference to mediation are closed. Arguments concluded. Orders reserved,” said the bench, also comprising Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer.

Hindu bodies like Nirmohi Akhara suggested the names of Justices (retd) Kurian Joseph, A.K. Patnaik and G.S. Singhvi as mediators, while the Hindu Mahasabha faction of Swami Chakrapani proposed the names of former CJIs Justices J.S. Khehar, Dipak Misra and Justice (retd) A.K. Patnaik to the bench.

During the hearing, all Hindu bodies except Nirmohi Akhara opposed the suggestion of the court to refer the issue for mediation, while Muslim bodies supported it.

“You are saying it will be a failure. We are not assuming that somebody will give it up. Primarily, we think this issue is not a property dispute. It is not about the 1500 sq ft but it is about the religious sentiments and faith.

“We are conscious about the gravity of the issue and we are also conscious about its impact on the body politic of the country. We understand how it goes and is looking at minds, hearts, and healing if possible,” the bench said.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the legal heirs of original litigant M. Siddiq, said that outlining of the dispute is not necessary and the court can order mediation by a mediator when parties are unable to settle it. To this, the bench said that there may not be one mediator but a panel of mediators to deal with the issue.

Dhavan said that mediation in the peculiar facts of the case can be ordered in-camera and no parties should be allowed to disclose the proceedings till the final report is filed. The bench agreed with the contention of Dhavan that confidentiality of proceedings should be maintained and said it thinks there has to be a complete ban on media reporting on the developments of the mediation process.

“It is not something like gag order but there should be no reporting. It is easy to attribute something to somebody when the mediation process is on,” the bench said. Two factions of Hindu Mahasabha took opposite stand on the issue of mediation with one body supporting it, and the other opposing it.

Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing for Hindu deity Ram Lalla Virajman said the faith that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya is not negotiable but the question is of Rama Janamsthan (birthplace). “We are even willing to crowd-fund a mosque somewhere else but no negotiations can take place with respect of Lord Rama’s birthplace. Mediation won’t serve any purpose,” he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, said the court should refer the matter for mediation only when there exists an element of settlement. He said considering the nature of the dispute it will not be prudent and advisable to take this path of mediation.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya is partitioned equally among the three parties—the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The case got momentum after, in mid-2015, Subramanian Swamy entered the case with a petition for seeking basic facilities to the devotees who came to pray at the temporary structure in Ayodhya.  Congress lawyers and Muslim parties’ lawyers were trying to delay the beginning of hearing of the case at each stage.

The Supreme Court is expected to pass an order on mediation if any needed soon and continuation with the same Bench or other Bench on Subramanian Swamy’s petition for fundamental right to pray.

The detailed seven-page written submission to the Supreme Court by Subramanian Swamy on March 6, 2019, is published below. – PGurus, 7 March 2019

4 Responses

  1. Mediators: Justice Kalifulla, Sri Ravi Shankar & Sriram Panchu
    No compromise on the construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya: Hindu leaders responds to SC Order for Mediation – Team PGurus – PGurus – March 8, 2019

    In general many political and religious leaders welcomed the Supreme Court’s order for mediation on Wednesday with right-wing leaders stressed that Ram Mandir construction in Ayodhya would be the ultimate aim, certain Muslim leaders and Left leaders expressed apprehensions of spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar in the mediation panel.

    A number of senior BJP leaders made it clear Friday that building Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya is the only way out of the impasse, soon after the Supreme Court ordered a time-bound mediation to resolve the long-pending issue. Union minister Uma Bharti said one has to respect the Supreme Court order but asserted that she stands for building the Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya and a mosque can be built only outside its vicinity.

    BJP MP Subramanian Swamy, who also a filed petition on fundamental right to pray at Ram Mandir stressed that the construction of Ram temple is non-negotiable. “There is no question of not building a temple where we believe Lord Ram was born,” he said adding that he will present his views before the mediation panel.

    “The Supreme Court set up three eminent persons mediation committee is welcome. But the Committee will have to first map the problem within the space determined by the parameters so far set by Supreme Court starting from the 1994 Constitutional Bench judgment and ending with the judgment of the three-judge bench judgment of Sept 27, 2018. Masjid is not an essential part of Islamic theology and hence it can be shifted or demolished by the government. Worshipping in a Temple built on faith that it is on the birthplace of Sri Rama is a fundamental right under the Constitution. Such a temple cannot be shifted.

    “A claim by a Suit to the title of the property is just an ordinary right and is superseded or overpowered by a fundamental right to the same property. Hence the Hindus’ right to re-building the demolished temple is guaranteed by the Constitution. Union Government in 1993 nationalised the entire 67.07 acres including the 0.313 acres disputed land. Supreme Court cannot question that. But title holders are entitled to compensation including alternative sites from the government. Hence the only solution is Ram Temple in Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi and masjid in Ambedkar or Lucknow districts where there is a Muslim population,” said Swamy in a statement.

    In an apparent reference to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi said he should act in an “unbiased” manner. “It would have been better had the Supreme Court appointed a neutral person. One of the members of the panel had threatened Muslims that India would become Syria and I hope that he keeps those thoughts out of his mind while being on the mediation panel. We welcome the decision,” he told reporters.

    The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Friday welcomed the Supreme Court referring the vexed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for mediation, saying it would be most befitting that the matter is resolved through negotiations. “The Supreme Court has given this order and it needs to be welcomed…. It would be most befitting that the matter is resolved through dialogue…Let’s see what happens now,” AIMPLB general secretary Maulana Wali Rehmani told media.

    Mahant Ram Das of the Nirmohi Akhara, one of the main litigants in the case, too welcomed the setting up of a panel of mediators, but said it would have been better had a Hindu judge, connected with the case, been included in it. He added that besides the mediation efforts, the court hearing in the matter should also go on simultaneously so as to see that the case does not get prolonged further if the litigants are not satisfied.

    BSP leader Mayawati called the move “appreciable”. “Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order to constitute in-camera mediation (in Faizabad) in order to resolve the Ayodhya matter seems an honest effort. Hon’ble Court looking for ‘a possibility of healing relationships’ is an appreciable move. BSP welcomes it,” she said on Twitter.

    CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat said the previous mediation efforts had failed to yield results but this time, the Supreme Court is monitoring it and all the parties who have gone to the court are in agreement with the decision and it is to be seen what the result will be.


  2. Ayodhya Case Mediators: The 3 Men Tasked With Resolving Dispute – Debjani Chatterjee – NDTV -New Delhi – March 08, 2019

    The Supreme Court today ordered mediation to settle the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute by a three-member panel including spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Justice (Retd) FM Kalifulla and senior advocate Sriram Panchu. The panel has been given eight weeks by the Supreme Court to arrive at a conclusion. It has to give a status report at the end of four weeks. The three members have the liberty to get more people on board if they want or get any legal help, said the top court.

    > Justice FM Kalifulla, 68, is the son of Late Justice M Fakkir Mohamed, who started his career as an advocate in August 1975. He was also an active labour law practitioner. In 2000, Justice Kalifulla was appointed as a permanent Judge of the Madras High Court. Justice Kalifulla was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court on April 2, 2012.

    “I understand the Supreme Court has appointed a mediation committee headed by me. I’m yet to receive the order copy. I can say if a committee has been constituted we’ll make every effort to resolve the issue amicably,” Justice Kalifulla told reporters after the top court’s order.

    > Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, 62, is a spiritual guru, who has been leading a worldwide movement for a violence-free society. Sri Sri had been advocating constructive dialogue between the opposing parties on Ram Mandir issue.

    Sri Sri took to Twitter and said, “Respecting everyone, turning dreams to reality, ending long-standing conflicts happily and maintaining harmony in society – we must all move together towards these goals.”

    > Sriram Panchu, 69, is a senior advocate and mediator. Founder of The Mediation Chambers – India’s first court-annexed mediation centre in 2005 – he played a key role in making mediation a part of India’s legal system. After being appointed as a mediator, Mr Panchu said, “It is a very serious responsibility given to me by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. I will do my best.”

    Mr Panchu has written several books on mediation. The top court had referred to him as an “eminent trainer” and “one of the foremost mediators in the country”.


  3. Uma Bharti warns of ‘violent backlash’ if Muslims don’t drop Idea of mosque in Ayodhya – News18 – Bhopal – 7 March 2019

    On a day when the Supreme Court pushed for amicable settlement of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute, union minister Uma Bharti claimed that Ayodhya could only have a temple and idea of building a mosque could bolster “possibility of violent backlash”.

    Bharti, who was in Bhopal to discuss initiation of Ken-Betwa river linking project with Madhya Pradesh chief minister Kamal Nath, denied comment on the SC’s proposal of mediation in case.

    “But as a Rambhakt, all I can say is that as Vatican City can’t have a mosque or Mecca Medina can’t have a temple, similarly the Ram Janmabhoomi land can only have a temple, nothing else,” she said.

    The fiery Hindutva leader said Muslims are entitled to have mosques wherever they live, and said they do and they have mosques in Ayodhya and Faizabad, but the idea of a mosque around the Ram Janmabhoomi land would only keep the dispute alive forever and bolster “possibility of violent backlash”.

    When asked if she was fuelling speculations of a riot, Bharti backtracked and said she would rather sacrifice her life than incite violence. She claimed she was part of world’s biggest non-violent movement on the issue.

    Slamming senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh for seeking evidence of IAF strike in Pakistan, Bharti tore into the former CM and claimed that Congress doesn’t have faith in Muslims’ nationalism.

    “Digvijay ji’s all statements are aimed at Muslim vote back as he thinks that parting with terror elements would appease Muslims,” said Bharti, adding that BJP has no doubt about nationalistic sentiments of the Muslims.

    Commenting on Congress accusations of BJP trying to get political mileage out of terror strike in Pulwama, Bharti claimed the Congress which fought two Lok Sabha polls after cremations of two of its senior leaders in 1984 (after demise of Indira Gandhi) and in 1991 (after Rajiv Gandhi’s demise) should be ashamed of itself before questioning BJP’s intent.

    “PM Modi’s kaam (work) and vishwasniyta (credibility) would take the BJP through in LS polls,” said Bharti. She also downplayed impact of Mahagathbandhan saying they have intense internecine disputes which would only benefit the BJP.


  4. There is no justice for Hindus either in the Court or the PMO. The Court knows nothing of Hindu Dharma (as we see from the Sabarimala case) and exhibits hostility to Hindu interests to cover its ignorance, and the PM ignores his Hindu vote bank for fear of alienating the Muslims and Christians who are not going to vote for him anyway. Hindus are self-destructing with their perverse concept of ‘Indian secularism’ and are being assisted to their demise by the honorable institutions of the Indian state. May Bhagwan help us!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: