The Allahabad High Court in the case observed and has reserved its judgment on a batch of pleas moved which includes a petition challenging the civil suit of 2019 filed by Hindu worshippers seeking the right to worship in the Gyanvapi mosque.
The present suit pending before the Varanasi court, seeks to restore an ancient temple at the disputed site currently occupied by the Gyanvapi mosque, with the petitioners wherein it contended that the mosque is a part of the temple.
The court observed that it has been the primary contention of the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee, which manages the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and UP Sunni Central Waqf Board that the suit prohibited by the Places of Worship Act (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.
It has been stated that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 prohibits the conversion of a religious structure from its nature as it stood on the date of independence.
Earlier, the Supreme Court in the case observed and has refused to interfere with the order passed by Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker (now retired) transferring the cases concerning the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Mosque dispute to his bench from the bench of another judge.
The three-judge bench headed by CJI Chandrachud in the case observed and has pointed out that the previous judge i.e., Justice Prakash Padia had not delivered the judgment despite reserving it in 2021 a sh Padia had not delivered the judgment despite reserving it in 2021 and holding seventy-five hearings, and hence, the order of CJI to transfer cases was justified.
Therefore, on August 11, the then Chief Justice (Justice Diwaker) passed an order on the administrative side withdrawing the Gyanvapi title dispute cases from the bench of Justice Prakash Padia that in the interest of judicial propriety and judicial discipline as well as the transparency in the listing of cases.
Later, the said matter was assigned to the bench of Chief Justice.
The court observed that this development had come shortly after Justice Padia’s bench, which had been hearing the matter since August 2021, wherein the court concluded the hearing and reserved the orders in the cases on July 25.
The court observed that the reason behind such a decision was disclosed in the Chief Justice’s order dated August 28, wherein it was reasoned that non-observance of the procedure in listing the cases, passing of successive orders for reserving the judgment and again listing the cases before the Judge i.e., Justice Prakash Padia for hearing through he no longer had the jurisdiction as per the master of the roster, had led to the withdrawal of the cases.
Therefore, the Chief Justice in his 12-page order stated that essentially his order on the administrative side emanated from a complaint which was made before him on July 27, 2023, by a counsel of one of the parties to the proceedings, wherein it has been highlighted the fact that hearing in the dispute cases was proceeding in derogation of the procedure laid down in law for listing of the cases as per the rules.
The counsel, S.F.A. Naqvi, Senior Advocate, Puneet Kumar Gupta, Syed Ahmed Faizan appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Ajay Kumar Singh, Vijai Shankar Rastogi, Sunil Rastogi, Tejas Singh, M.C. Chaturvedi, learned AAG, Kunal Ravi Singh, CSC, Vijay Shanker Mishra, CSC-VI, Hare Ram Tripathi, SC, Sri Ankit Gaur, SC, Vineet Sankalp, SC, Shashi Prakash Singh, ASGI, Manoj Kumar Singh, Ved Mani Tiwari and Sudarshan Singh learned CGCs represented the respondent.