Ayodhya Case: Attempts to obtain a weak and partial arbitration committee-led settlement in the case of Ayodhya came as a setback, as members of six of the seven appellants, on behalf of the Mosque, opposed the mechanism and the substance of the arbitration agreement, as well as the circumstances and time to send the final report.
In his statement on Friday, he said, “Do not acknowledge the motion that has been leaked to the press, the mechanism by which the arbitration has taken place, or the manner in which the withdrawal of the case is proposed as a settlement.”
As on 17 October, the last day of the hearing of the case of Ayodhya, the Arbitration Committee submitted the outline of the “contract” rendered to the Supreme Court by the President of the Sunni Waqf Board, offering “no opposition” to the government. On the disputed part of the land, in exchange for the mosque to be opened for prayer in the ASI mosques, the restoration of mosques in Ayodhya, the alternative mosque instead of the demolished Babri Masjid and the institution of social harmony in Ayodhya. Nevertheless, as mentioned, the deity (Ramlila), the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas and the Nirmohi Arena declined to be parties to the arbitration.
There has been a plan to endorse only one of the seven Muslim groups. On Friday, people from all sides of the Muslim world came forward, saying that they recognized that “only a limited number of people had participated in this arbitration,” Dharm Das of Nirvani Akhara, Mr. Zafar Farooqi of the Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Hindu K. Sri Chakrapani. General Assembly. General Assembly. We are also made to understand that two other people who are interested can participate in mediation. “Consequently, he said,” it is difficult to accept that any arbitration could have been done under the circumstances, especially when the main Hindu parties openly stated that they were not open to any settlement and that all other Muslim appellants Had made it clear, however, that they would not do so. ”
The debaters, on behalf of the god Ramlala, declared in the open court that they would not engage in any arbitration proceedings when the arbitration process received a second lease of life.
In March this year, a few days after the formation of the arbitration committee, the Muslim parties submitted a written proposal to the committee to construct both a temple and a mosque, but it did not elicit any response from any Hindu side, hence There was little scope for a breakthrough.
Describing the timing of the final’ deal’ to the Supreme Court, the public statement today reported that one of the arbitrators, Senior Advocate Shriram Panchu, had’ sent patronage to the Honorable Chief Justice of India,’ Mr. Zuffar Farooqui, and the State of UP had been directed to make arrangements for them. “Verification and verification of leakage to the media by Mr. Rizvi (Advocate on record acting on behalf of Zufar Farooqui) on 17 October 2019 at the very date when the hearing is closed It has been well-thought out.Mr. Panchu was also at the premises of the Supreme Court on 16 October and was in the offices of Mr. Zafar Farooqui.
“After being deemed” unsuccessful “in August, about a month ago, the Chief Justice allowed the arbitration to proceed with the arguments before the court. The court-appointed a group of arbitrators, led by former Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras, Justice FMI Kalifulla and senior advocate Sriram Panchu and other members of the Art of Living founder Sri Ravi Shankar.