In Brief
The Supreme Court held that a complex, multi-party civil dispute concerning a place of religious significance should be referred to court-monitored mediation despite the parties' lack of consensus, invoking Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court appointed a panel of three mediators and directed that mediation proceedings be conducted with strict confidentiality, held in camera, with no media disclosure. The Court rejected arguments that the provisions on representative suits and settlement precluded mediation, leaving open the application of those provisions if settlement is achieved. The mediators were directed to complete the process within a defined timeframe and report progress to the Court.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.