Men of law, not faith (Indian Express)

Mains Paper 4: Society
Prelims level: Ayodhya Disputes
Mains level: Social empowerment, communalism, regionalism and secularism.

Context

•  Memories of the Union Carbide case came rushing to mind when I read the order in the Ayodhya case by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) ordering a formal mediation.
•  There, too, a settlement was recorded, but behind the backs of the parties; a settlement in which only the Union of India and Union Carbide were parties and the victims were ignored.
•  The settlement absolved Union Carbide of all criminal and civil liability for a paltry sum of $450 million.
•  Later, due to the protest of the victims, the criminal proceedings were restored and are still going on. Remember, the disaster occurred in 1984.

Learning outcomes highlighted by the court

•  The SC has learnt from that mammoth mistake.
•  This time, the affected parties participated in the proceedings.
•  Some of them did object to the proposed mediation on the ground that these were “matters of faith” but the Court went ahead and appointed mediators.
•  The Court records there is lack of consensus on the need for mediation but having regard to the “nature of the dispute” feels compelled to order that “an attempt should be made to settle the dispute by mediation”.
•  The Court has not clarified under what provision of law the order has been passed but feels inspired by Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code.
•  The Section applies for settling of disputes “outside court” when it appears to the court that “elements of a settlement” exist.
•  The Section visualised several modes of settlement arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement or mediation.
•  If the mediation is under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, it is binding as an award.
•  This order is clearly not under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which is welcome.
•  The SC has left open the question of challenge to any possible terms of settlement under the law, indicating clearly that a settlement cannot be forced on anyone.

What is SCs directed?

•  Section 89, the SC has directed the parties to attempt to settle the dispute, leaving both parties to contest the possible terms of the settlement and make it non-binding.
•  We must assume that the Court has exercised its inherent powers under Order LV Rule 6 which says, “Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of the court.”
•  The SC has behaved in a statesman-like manner, leaving its judicial role to surface later.
•  It seems the Court was of the opinion that certain disputes are not quite easy of judicial resolution and require a “healing touch”.
•  After all, no court wants to see its own judgments violated and slandered, as with the Sabarimala judgment.
•  Settlement by consensus is one way of settling a dispute, provided that both parties negotiate on an equal basis.
•  In this case, unfortunately, the negotiation is taking place in the shadow of the demolition of the Babri Masjid and no responsibility had been fixed on the political party, the same party that is in power today and that spearheaded the demolition in 1992.
•  The bargaining position is, therefore, not equal.

Way forward

•  The Court should have put in place safeguards to correct this imbalance. Keeping the proceedings confidential is not a sufficient safeguard. Keeping out political or electoral considerations would be more important.
•  One disappointment comes from the mediators chosen, without meaning any disrespect to them, they could have been better chosen.
•  The mediation needed people of national stature and those who are not “men of faith”.
•  There has also been criticism that since Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is guilty of contempt of court for refusing to pay the compensation ordered by the NGT for damage to the environment, why was he chosen?

Online Coaching for UPSC PRE Exam

General Studies Pre. Cum Mains Study Materials

Prelims Questions:

Q.1) Which of the following is a breach of Parliamentary privileges as contained in the Indian Constitution?
1. Publishing reports of any parliamentary sittings by the press.
2. Throwing leaflets from the visitors' gallery of a House of Parliament.
3. Writing an article that has the effect on lowering the dignity of the office of the Speaker.

Select the correct answer using the code given below.
(a) 1 and 3 only
(b) 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: C

Mains Questions:
Q.1) Critically comment on the Ayodhya dispute and its implications on national unity.