Judgement Briefs

Alternative Dispute Resolution

M. Siddiq (D) Through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das

Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010, order dated 8 March 2019

Citation
Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010, order dated 8 March 2019
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
8 March 2019
Bench
Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.; S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Facts

  • The appeals concerned the long-standing Ayodhya title dispute.
  • Several suits involving competing claims over the disputed religious site had reached the Supreme Court.
  • A Constitution Bench was constituted to hear the appeals.
  • Considerable time was required to complete translations and prepare the record for final hearing.
  • On 26 February 2019, the Court considered whether the intervening period could be used for mediation.
  • The parties expressed different views:
  • some supported an attempt at mediation;
  • others opposed it;
  • there was no unanimous consent.
  • It was argued that the suits had representative characteristics and that any compromise could affect persons who were not individually present before the Court.
  • Reliance was placed on procedural safeguards applicable to representative suits, including the requirement of court approval and notice before a compromise becomes binding.
  • The Supreme Court therefore had to decide whether the absence of unanimity prevented a reference to mediation.

Issue

  • Whether the Supreme Court could refer the dispute to mediation despite the objection of some parties.
  • Whether procedural rules concerning approval of a compromise prevented even an attempt at mediation.
  • What safeguards were required because of the dispute’s religious sensitivity and public importance.

Rule

  • Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure encourages courts to use appropriate ADR processes where a dispute contains possible elements of settlement.
  • Mediation is a facilitated and non-binding process.
  • A reference to mediation does not itself:
  • decide legal rights;
  • compel settlement;
  • validate a compromise; or
  • make proposed terms binding on absent persons.
  • Questions concerning the legality and binding effect of an eventual compromise arise only if mediation produces a settlement.
  • Courts may impose confidentiality and monitoring safeguards to protect the process.

Application

  • The Court distinguished between sending the parties to mediation and approving a final settlement.
  • At the referral stage, no party was being forced to:
  • surrender a legal claim;
  • accept another party’s religious position;
  • sign settlement terms; or
  • abandon the appeal.
  • Mediation would merely create a structured opportunity for dialogue.
  • Therefore, procedural provisions requiring notice or leave before approval of a representative compromise did not prevent the Court from first exploring settlement.
  • Those safeguards could be examined later if a settlement emerged.
  • The Court considered the exceptional nature of the dispute.
  • It involved:
  • religious faith;
  • historical grievances;
  • property claims;
  • community relations; and
  • consequences extending beyond ordinary private litigation.
  • These features made mediation difficult, but they also made a consensual solution especially valuable.
  • A judicial judgment could determine legal title, but mediation might allow the parties to address wider concerns that strict adjudication could not resolve.
  • The Court therefore concluded that the absence of complete consent was not a legal barrier to a court-directed mediation attempt.
  • To maintain confidence, the Court appointed a three-member mediation panel consisting of:
  • Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla, former Supreme Court judge, as Chairperson;
  • Sri Sri Ravi Shankar; and
  • senior mediator Sriram Panchu.
  • The process was to be court-monitored and conducted confidentially.
  • The Court prohibited reporting of the mediation proceedings by print and electronic media.
  • This protected candour and prevented tentative proposals from being treated as admissions or public commitments.
  • The Court made clear that the mediation order did not prejudge the title appeals.
  • If mediation failed, the appeals would continue on their legal merits.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court referred the Ayodhya dispute to a court-appointed mediation panel.
  • It held that the absence of unanimity did not legally prevent an attempt at mediation.
  • Issues concerning whether a future compromise could bind all interested persons were left open.
  • The mediation proceedings were directed to remain confidential and under judicial supervision.
  • Use this case for: a court may direct confidential mediation in a highly sensitive multi-party dispute even without unanimous support, while preserving scrutiny of any eventual settlement.