M. Siddiq (D) v. Mahant Suresh Das
Ayodhya title dispute — Supreme Court’s referral to mediation under Section 89 CPC (Order dated 8 March 2019).
Supreme Court of India
Decided: 08 Mar 2019
5-Judge Constitution Bench
Civil Appeal Nos. 10866–1087 of 2010
Section 89 CPC • Mediation
~6 min read
Quick Summary
This order concerns the Ayodhya title dispute. On 8 March 2019, the Supreme Court of India used Section 89 CPC to send the matter to mediation. The Court noted that a settlement route should be tried, even if all sides did not consent, because the conflict affected faith and public peace.
- Confidential mediation at Faizabad, arranged by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
- Representative-suit rules (O.I r.8; O.23 r.3B) don’t stop a referral; they apply when a compromise is reached.
Issues
Can the Supreme Court refer the Ayodhya land ownership dispute between Hindu and Muslim communities to mediation under Section 89 CPC?
Rules
- Section 89 CPC: Court may send disputes to arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement, or mediation when settlement seems possible.
- Order I Rule 8 & Order 23 Rule 3B CPC: In representative suits, any compromise needs notice to all interested persons and court approval to ensure fairness.
Facts — Timeline
Dec 1949: Idols of Lord Rama were placed inside Babri Masjid, causing law-and-order concerns.
Faizabad court gave custody of the site to the State to manage peace.
1959, 1961, 1989: Three title suits filed—by Nirmohi Akhara (manager claim), Sunni Waqf Board (possession claim), and a representative of Lord Rama.
1992: Babri Masjid was demolished.
Sep 2010: Allahabad High Court split the land into three portions (Akhara, Lord Rama, Sunni Waqf Board).
2011: Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s division order.
Oct 2018: CJI referred the matter to a Constitution Bench of five judges.
08 Mar 2019: Case sent to mediation for eight weeks; process to be confidential and arranged at Faizabad by U.P. Government.
Arguments
Appellants
- The dispute touches faith and order; trial alone may deepen tensions.
- Section 89 CPC enables the Court to try mediation first.
- Confidentiality will reduce public pressure and misreporting.
Respondents
- Large public claims need consent; representative nature complicates settlement.
- Order I Rule 8 & Order 23 Rule 3B require safeguards for all affected persons.
- Fear that mediation could delay final adjudication.
Judgment (Order)
- Referral to Mediation: The Court directed confidential mediation by a panel; U.P. Government to make arrangements at Faizabad.
- No Need for Unanimous Consent: Given the dispute’s nature, the Court could order mediation even without all parties agreeing.
- Representative-Suit Safeguards: O.I r.8 and O.23 r.3B apply at the stage of compromise, not at the referral stage.
- Media Restraint: No publication of mediation details unless permitted by the panel.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 89 CPC empowers courts to explore settlement mechanisms, including mediation, in complex, sensitive disputes. Representative-suit safeguards regulate the approval of compromise and do not bar a referral to mediation.
Why It Matters
- Shows the Court’s proactive use of ADR to manage high-stakes social conflicts.
- Clarifies the interplay between Section 89 CPC and representative-suit rules.
- Stresses confidentiality to protect process integrity and public order.
Key Takeaways
- Court can refer disputes to mediation without unanimous consent.
- O.I r.8 and O.23 r.3B protect fairness at compromise, not at referral.
- Confidentiality in sensitive disputes is not optional—it is central.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “M-A-C” — Mediation allowed, All-party consent not needed, Confidentiality essential.
- Spot: Massive public dispute? Think Section 89 CPC.
- Check: Representative rules apply only at compromise stage.
- Seal: Keep it confidential unless mediators permit disclosure.
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Whether referral to mediation under Section 89 CPC was permissible in the Ayodhya title dispute. |
|---|---|
| Rule | Section 89 CPC; Order I Rule 8; Order 23 Rule 3B. |
| Application | The Court balanced public interest and procedural fairness, concluding that the referral stage is distinct from compromise approval safeguards. |
| Conclusion | Referral to confidential mediation was valid, even without unanimous party consent. |
Glossary
- Section 89 CPC
- Provision that lets courts send cases to ADR methods like mediation when settlement appears possible.
- Representative Suit
- A suit where a few persons represent a larger class; special safeguards apply to compromises.
- Confidential Mediation
- A private process where discussions stay off record unless disclosure is permitted.
FAQs
The Court believed a negotiated solution could calm tensions and serve the public interest better than immediate adversarial steps.
No. Mediation is a settlement attempt. If it fails, the case returns to the Court for adjudication.
The State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to arrange facilities at Faizabad for the court-appointed mediation panel.
No. Publication was barred unless the mediator panel allowed it.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now