New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday ordered that the Gyanvapi mosque dispute be heard by the senior-most judge of the district judiciary in Varanasi – the court said, adding that it was “peace on top of their mind” and “maintaining balance and fraternity between the two communities”. ” has been taken for. ,
A three-judge bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud directed that the files relating to the case be transferred from the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Varanasi to the court of the District Judge, Varanasi for further hearing. The court said the “complexity of the issues involved” and “their sensitivity” required trial by a “senior and experienced judicial officer of the Uttar Pradesh High Judicial Service”.
The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the management committee of Anjuman Intejamiya Masjid – Gyanvapi Masjid – challenging the April 21, 2022 order of the Allahabad High Court, which had passed the August 2021 order of the Varanasi civil judge to appoint a lawyer. refused to overturn the verdict. The commissioner inspected the mosque.
The Supreme Court on Friday said that all interlocutory and ancillary proceedings in the trial will be addressed to the district judge’s court. The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and PS Narasimha, orally clarified that its order was not an impeachment on the civil judge, who had heard the matter so far. However, during the hearing, the bench remarked that it is concerned about “getting a sense of balance on the ground”.
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ravi Kumar Diwakar issued the order on a suit filed by five women who have claimed the right to pray inside the mosque on the ground that there are idols of Goddess Maa Shringar Gauri and other Hindu deities.
On 16 May, he also directed to seal the part inside the mosque where there was a temple.howling It is said to have been found. The order came on an application filed by the petitioners before the Advocates Commissioner submitted his report to the court.
The next hearing of the case is on July 21.
Read also: Aibak, Akbar, Aurangzeb-Gyanvapi partition and why a controversial mosque has a Sanskrit name
‘Decision on priority basis on the petition of the mosque’
The Supreme Court, in its order, said that the District Judge will decide on priority basis the application filed by the Masjid Management Committee, in which they have questioned the hearing of the case.
The mosque says such litigation is prohibited under the Places of Worship Act, 1991 – a law that prevents the religious character of a place of worship from changing as of 15 August 1947. However, before deciding on this application, the trial judge appointed a local commissioner to survey the mosque.
On Friday, the Supreme Court said that till the district judge decides the petition on the trial, it will have to wait till May 17. count – Instructing the District Magistrate of Varanasi to protect the area where a Shivling has been found – will operate.
In this interim order, the court had held that the measures taken to protect the area would not obstruct the right of Muslims to offer Namaz and perform other religious rituals.
Justice Chandrachud also observed that mere determination of the religious character of a place cannot be in contravention of the 1991 Act. The judge then clarified how the hybrid character of religious places in India is not unknown.
The Supreme Court said its May 17 order will remain in effect for eight weeks after the district judge delivers its verdict. Its main objective is to give time to both the parties to appeal against the order of the District Judge in the High Courts.
read also, BJP ‘surveillance situation’ to formulate knowledge-based strategy
‘sense of balance
In Friday’s hearing, the Supreme Court was told that vazukhana – A pond-like structure with taps on both sides for devotees to wash their feet before going to the designated area Namaz – Inaccessible due to heavy police force.
it was on vazukhana that’s a deal Shivling has reportedly been found,
The court then asked the District Magistrate to hold talks with the parties, and made adequate arrangements for wazoo (washing feet).
The judges orally told both the sides that the structure created through his order is for maintaining peace.
“We need to maintain balance. There should be a sense of balance and fraternity and we, as the Supreme Court, are bound to send this message,” the court said while assuring the counsel representing the Muslim side that the top The court will not allow the trial court to run. Amok”.
“Maintain the status quo and see how it develops. Interim orders are not [the] Right solution and these are complicated situations,” the bench said. It said it would keep the appeal of the mosque management pending and would hear it in the second week of July.
‘Procedural errors’
The court said the fact that the apex court has forfeited the proceedings, “would soothe some weak nerves of both the parties and is like a healing touch”. “We are in a joint mission to maintain a sense of balance in the nation,” it added.
The oral remarks came after senior counsel Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the mosque management committee, accused the lower court judge of committing procedural errors by directing a survey before deciding on his client’s maintenance application. He said that the trial court through a string of its orders has sought to change the status quo of the mosque which was there for more than 500 years and is protected under the 1991 Act.
All trial court orders, Ahmadi argued, were under the 1991 law as well as the 2019 judgment in the Ayodhya case, in which the Act upheld the equality of all religions and secularism, which is part of the basic structure. ,
Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for the Hindu parties, argued that technically the appeal filed by the Management Committee was infructuous as it was against the orders of the three lower courts which have been complied with so far.
He further argued that to decide on the application of the Muslim side claiming that the suit seeks to alter the religious character of the structure, which is not permitted under the 1991 law, the court must first determine the religious character of the place. Will have to do Vaidyanathan further said that to find out what is the religious character of this place, the court will have to consider the report of the Advocate Commissioner.
A court-appointed reconstituted commission in Varanasi completed its videographic survey of the Gyanvapi mosque complex and report good on 19 May. Commission was reconstituted after Varanasi Court removed Advocate commissioner Ajay Kumar Mishra, in-charge of the first survey, alleged that he had leaked the details of the process. The reconstituted commission conducted its survey on 14, 15 and 16.
The bench preferred not to issue any direction on Vaidyanathan’s submissions and said it would be left to the discretion of the district judge as to how he wanted to proceed.
Justice Chandrachud, one of the most vocal in the bench, said, “That is why we feel that a senior officer, who has a position of more than 20 years in the field of judiciary, should hear the matter.” “We want a system to protect the interests of all parties, including the state, so that there is no law and order problem.”
He said that his order to nominate a senior judge to hear the matter was not in any way an attempt to cast a shadow on the junior judge.
“The three of us have thought about it and felt that considering the complexity and sensitivity of the matter, we should ask a senior judge to hear the matter,” the bench said.
However, it acknowledged Ahmadi’s concern that leaking parts The commissioner’s report had created some kind of communal disharmony on the ground.
“We can tell the other side that selective leaks should be stopped, nobody should leak to the press. In some judicial proceedings there is an order, a commission should present the report in the court and only a judge should open it,” the bench said.
Ahmadi complained that the trial judge’s order was being used in relation to not only the Gyanvapi mosque but also other mosques across the country.
“It is capable of causing serious public mischief and this is what the Places of Worship Act of 1991 wanted to avoid,” he told the court.
“The taste of halwa is in the food. Not only has the decision of the five judges (of the Ayodhya judgment) been stayed, but the directions in it have become a dream. The created story has disturbed the communal harmony. Please don’t look at it with just a suit, but by its serious impact on the ground,” argued Ahmadi.
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)
Read also: ‘Lotus, Sheshnag, Sindoor adorned idols’: What ‘Survey Report’ says about Shringar Gauri site