A member of the border security force guards the Babri Masjid |Robert Nickelsberg/Liaison
A member of the Border Security Force guards the Babri Masjid | Robert Nickelsberg | Liaison
Text Size:

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday referred the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case for mediation.

The five-judge constitution bench appointed a panel of mediators that will arbitrate on the issue.

Former apex court judge F.M.I. Kalifulla will lead the panel. Spiritual leader and Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu will also sit on the panel.

The mediation will be held at Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh with “utmost confidentiality”. The UP government has been directed to facilitate the proceedings.

Also read: What about Babri Masjid? How land became more important than the mosque in Ayodhya

The panel has been given 8 weeks to arbitrate on this issue and file a progress report within 4 weeks. The panel must commence dialogue within a week and can seek legal assistance if required. It can also invite more participants if deemed so.

The process will be held in-camera and the media has been gagged from reporting on the process.

We are deeply grateful to our readers & viewers for their time, trust and subscriptions.

Quality journalism is expensive and needs readers to pay for it. Your support will define our work and ThePrint’s future.


In the verdict announced Friday, the court observed that there was no “legal impediment” in sending the contentious matter for mediation.

The court backed its verdict by relying on Order 23 Rule 3 of the compromise decree. It further held that if the parties agreed to a settlement, then the top court could direct such an agreement to be recorded and pass a decree accepting the resolution among the parties.

Mediation tussle

The Supreme Court Wednesday heard arguments at length and reserved its verdict on the matter.

The hearing saw vociferous protests from most of the Hindu groups against the suggestion for mediated resolution, whereas the Muslim faction accepted it. Nirmohi Akhara was the only Hindu group that was open to mediation.

The top court was hearing a batch of pleas that challenged the 2010 Allahabad high court order that in a 2:1 majority divided the land three ways between the Sunni Wakf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the deity Ram Lalla.

Also read: On Ayodhya dispute case, top court says can’t change what Babur did, must focus on present

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

News media is in a crisis & only you can fix it

You are reading this because you value good, intelligent and objective journalism. We thank you for your time and your trust.

You also know that the news media is facing an unprecedented crisis. It is likely that you are also hearing of the brutal layoffs and pay-cuts hitting the industry. There are many reasons why the media’s economics is broken. But a big one is that good people are not yet paying enough for good journalism.

We have a newsroom filled with talented young reporters. We also have the country’s most robust editing and fact-checking team, finest news photographers and video professionals. We are building India’s most ambitious and energetic news platform. And we aren’t even three yet.

At ThePrint, we invest in quality journalists. We pay them fairly and on time even in this difficult period. As you may have noticed, we do not flinch from spending whatever it takes to make sure our reporters reach where the story is. Our stellar coronavirus coverage is a good example. You can check some of it here.

This comes with a sizable cost. For us to continue bringing quality journalism, we need readers like you to pay for it. Because the advertising market is broken too.

If you think we deserve your support, do join us in this endeavour to strengthen fair, free, courageous, and questioning journalism, please click on the link below. Your support will define our journalism, and ThePrint’s future. It will take just a few seconds of your time.

Support Our Journalism

1 Comment Share Your Views


  1. Far too complex and emotive an issue for these three gentlemen to find a solution. What legal / moral / spiritual force and authority do they possess, beyond having been chosen by the apex court, to come up with a formula that both major communities would unhesitatingly accept. 2. What some / many hope – especially in these majoritarian times – is that the Muslims will be “ reasonable “, if not “ magnanimous “, agree to accept an alternate location where a new mosque could be constructed. The grim act of 6th December 1992 could be quietly forgotten. 3. This, above, is a case where the apex court should dispose of the case on merits, wherever that may lead.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here