Gyanvapi, Mathura and Sambhal litigants decline Supreme Court's mediation offer

BOth the hindoo and moslem sides in the Gyanvapi mosque difference in Varanasi, the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah shore conflict in Mathura and the Jama Masjid dispute in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal have declined to participate in the Supreme Court’s proposed consensual dispute resolution process, opting instead to have the contentious litigations adjudicated on their legal merits.HT has learnt that the Supreme Court administration recently wrote to all contesting parties in the three temple-mosque disputes, inviting them to explore an amicable settlement under the apex court’s nationwide mediation initiative, “Supreme Court Action for Mediated Adjudication and Disputes Harmonization Across Nation (Samadhan Samaroh) 2026”, which will culminate in a special Lok Adalat from August 21 to 23.However, parties representing both the Hindu litigants and the bodies managing the three mosques have informed the Supreme Court, as well as the respective state and district legal services authorities, that they are not inclined to participate in the mediation process.Lawyers and litigants associated with all three disputes told HT that they were of the view that cases involving competing claims over places of worship, questions of title, constitutional issues and matters of immense public importance ought to be adjudicated by courts rather than resolved through a Lok Adalat or mediated settlement.“The matters involve issues of title, constitutional rights and questions of wider public importance. These are not disputes that can appropriately be resolved through a Lok Adalat,” said a lawyer associated with one of the temple-side litigations.Representatives from the mosque management committees echoed a similar view, saying that while they support the peaceful resolution of disputes, they are not willing to submit these litigations to mediation.According to people aware of the developments, the responses have effectively ruled out the possibility of these high-profile disputes figuring among the matters that may be taken up during the special Lok Adalat.Samadhan Samaroh 2026Announced in April, Samadhan Samaroh 2026 seeks to encourage litigants to voluntarily settle pending Supreme Court cases through mediation and other consent-based mechanisms before specially constituted Lok Adalat sittings in August.The four-month programme envisages parties registering for mediation through physical and virtual modes, with the Supreme Court setting up a dedicated online portal and a central “war room” to coordinate the exercise.The three disputesThe Gyanvapi dispute concerns claims by Hindu litigants that the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi was built after the demolition of a pre-existing Kashi Vishwanath temple during the Mughal period.Multiple suits seek the right to worship in portions of the mosque complex and challenge the applicability of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Muslim parties, led by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, contest these claims and maintain that the mosque is protected under the 1991 law. Proceedings relating to survey reports, worship rights and maintainability of the suits continue before various courts.The Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah dispute in Mathura centres on claims by Hindu organisations that the Shahi Eidgah mosque stands on land forming part of Lord Krishna’s birthplace and that a 1968 compromise between the temple trust and the mosque committee is legally invalid. Numerous suits seek removal of the mosque or the restoration of the alleged original temple land. The mosque committee disputes these claims, relying, among other grounds, on the 1991 Places of Worship Act.The Sambhal Jama Masjid dispute arose after a civil court ordered a survey of the Mughal-era Shahi Jama Masjid on a plea claiming that a Harihar temple once existed at the site. Violence broke out in Sambhal in November last year following the court-directed survey, leading to multiple deaths and injuries.All three cases are currently pending before the Supreme Court, which has been called upon to examine broader legal questions surrounding such suits in light of the Places of Worship Act.