The new lawsuit filed last week centers on the claim that the Seva Sangh did not have the power to file a lawsuit to reach an agreement with the mosque administration. It was the Shree Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust and the deity that the country owned, the complaint says, and the 1967 complaint was not filed on behalf of the trust. However, according to last week`s appeal, the Supreme Court, in its 1993 judgment, reiterated that seva Sansthan and janmabhoomi Trust were different entities. Seva Sansthan was founded by the 15 agents of the Janmabhoomi Trust, but also included other people. Seva Sansthan had no legal basis to strike an agreement with the Muslim side, because she was not legally entitled to the country, the complaint claims, but it is hard to believe that the conservation of these monuments and artifacts – with which even the SG agreed – could weaken the judgment. If this is the case, the centre should not have hesitated to oppose conservation. But it wasn`t. Losing a right does not mean that it has been frivolous. A frivolous party takes liberties with facts. The Bank`s injunction shows that it does not dispute the facts cited in the petitions, but that it only has problems with the petitioners` so-called reasons. Reasons are secondary when there is a consensus on the solution sought.

By imagining non-existent motives, the Supreme Court may have accidentally rejected relief where it was most important: the preservation of precious heritage. Mediation is a confidential process in which a neutral third party helps the parties to the trial find an amicable solution. In judicial mediation, such an agreement is enforceable as a judgment of the Court. In this case, the Tribunal stressed that “mediation procedures and the opinions expressed by one of the parties, including experienced mediators, must remain confidential”. The Hindu and Muslim parties were represented in court by more than a dozen parties. No “agreement” was possible without an agreement of all and the last round tables took place without the agreement of all the parties concerned. Furthermore, the leak of the proposal is contrary to the General Court`s injunction to impose confidentiality. .

. .