No court can impose a compromise on any party in a case – what court can do is to decide and enforce execution of its order. The first principle of a compromise decree is that all parties in a case must agree for out of court settlement which in Ayodhya dispute is absent. There are few third parties with obvious vested interests who were is favour of out of court settlement and not the contesting parties.

The case before the court is not about what structure existed when and what structure would be erected on that land post disposal of the case. Simply this is about the title ownership of a piece of land where paper evidence weights more than any other non existent exhibits.

This religious guru who has publicly shown interest towards one side has no skill and experience to examine land records, registry, mutation papers etc. What role he would play in a panel where a deep examination of such evidence is required.

Supreme Court has done much harm to its institutional value and credibility by relying on a baba to workout a compromise in a complicated land dispute.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *