And we must
While hearing the Ayodhya dispute case yesterday, Hon Justice Bobde said :
“ We have no
control over the past . We can only do something
about what exists in the present , that is the dispute “
Sources :
[ A
]
Shri Tushar Mehta
( tusharmehta.asg@gmail.com
) – Solicitor General for UP , said :
“ The court
should refer the matter for mediation only when there exists an element of
settlement “
[ B
]
Senior advocate,
C S Vaidyanathan ,
appearing for Ram Lalla Virajman, said :
“ In a case of this nature, when Ayodhya is
accepted as Ram Janmbhoomi, if any mediation is to take place, nobody can agree
to some other place as Ram Janmsthan . That is non-negotiable.
Only thing to
negotiate is an alternate place for a mosque.
For this, we will be willing to
crowdsource funds.
This practically ended any scope for negotiation before it
could begin
Mediation has not
yielded any results in the past despite repeated attempts “
[ C
]
Senior Advocate,
Rajeev Dhavan , ( rdhavan@gmail.com ) , appearing for the Muslim parties said :
“ There is no
difference between court adjudicated verdict or a compromise which would
result in a decree
Both would be binding on the parties
I would go one step further and suggest that it
should be contempt of court if anyone
reported about developments in the mediation
process “
Muslim Bodies
supported the court’s suggestion of mediation and said it should be done
in-camera and nobody should be allowed to disclose the proceedings till the
final report is given ( - like
locking up the members of the jury in a room ? Possible )
[ D ]
Supreme Court :
# Asked all the
parties concerned for the names of possible mediators for reaching an
amicable settlement . “ Give names of
mediators by today. We will pass orders shortly
.
Instead of
one mediator, there could be a panel of mediators to thrash out the issue “
# Media need not
talk about what efforts are going on and what developments have taken
place.
We are considering whether it should be
reported at all.
It will not be a gag order
but there should be confidentiality of the
mediation process
# Justice Chandrachud said :
It could be
difficult to ensure secrecy of the mediation process. In the event of reaching
a
compromise, could it be binding on the public,
who are not parties to the case ?
# Justice Bobde said
:
“ You are pre-judging it .
We are trying for mediation because it is not
about a land dispute but involves
sentiments
and faith of people
We are
conscious of the gravity and importance of the dispute and its impact on the
body polity of the country
It is all
about mind, heart and feelings. But the law mandates that the court try and
heal the minds and hearts.
We cannot
understand how anyone can reject it outright
Desirability of a negotiated settlement cannot be ignored
Why do you
presume that you have to compromise ?
[ E ]
Dr Subramanian Swamy ( swamy39@gmail.com
) said :
“ Any compromise must be within certain parameters –
that all the land belongs to the
Government and can be given to anyone to
construct a temple “
=========================================================
From yesterday’s proceedings, the following is apparent
:
# By reaching a “ negotiated settlement “ , all parties are afraid
of being accused of a “
Sell Out “ by their respective constituencies !
Eg : “ If this is what you managed to get, why did you play with our
feelings for 70
years ? “
# They would all like to “ Save their faces “ by having someone else ( even
Supreme Court
or a panel of mediators ) hand
out a decision , so that they can say ,
“ What can we do ?
We tried our level best ! We have to obey the law of the land “
# They may not give names of any mediator/s ,
and start a new round of “ negotiations “
in respect of the panel members !
They would feel “ relieved “ if the Supreme Court selects
those mediators on its own
[ I
have given 4 names of eminent persons in my earlier mail ]
# Supreme Court itself
may be wanting to
hand out a decree along
the lines of my email
[ A
Home for Ram ]
but may not want to
appear “ arbitrary – biased – dictatorial “
For SC as well , it is
necessary to appear “ Rational
“ by adopting a well established
legal process !
=========================================================
Dear
Tushar
Mehta / C S Vaidyanathan / Rajeev Dhavan / Subramanian
Swamy :
I urge you to enable “ Birth of Peace “ in Ayodhya , as
described in :
Reach - Out Time ? - 20 Sept 2013
Sarva Dharma
Sthanam ? 02 Oct 2017
Let Ram’s
Ayodhya be Secular 31 Jan 2019
=========================================================
07 March 2019
Rsvp :
hcp@RecruitGuru.com
No comments:
Post a Comment