New Delhi: The Supreme Court has transferred the proceedings of the suit filed by Hindu devotees on Gyanvapi mosque from civil judge (senior division) to district judge, Varanasi.
The top court said that looking at the complexities and sensitivity of the issue, it is better if a senior judicial officer having an experience of over 25-30 years handles this case.
In an important observation, the top court also said that the process to ascertain the religious character of a place of worship is not barred under the Places of Worship Act of 1991.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and PS Narasimha said that the matter involves complexity and sensitivity and it would be better if a district judge handles the case and made it clear that it is not casting any aspersion on the civil judge (senior division) who was earlier dealing with the suit.
The top court also made it clear that its May 17 interim order to protect ‘Shivling’ purportedly discovered during the survey and free access to Muslims for namaz should continue.
Having regard to the complexities of the issue involved in the case, in the civil suit and their sensitivity, we are of the considered view that the suit before the civil judge (senior division) Varanasi should be tried before a senior and experienced judicial officer of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, the bench said.
We accordingly order and direct that the suit shall stand transferred from the file of civil judge (senior division) Varanasi to the court of the district judge, Varanasi for trial.
All the interlocutory and ancillary proceedings in the suit shall be addressed to and decided by the court of the district judge, the bench said.
The bench also directed the district magistrate to make adequate arrangements for wazu’ (ablution) for the Muslims coming for offering Namaz in the mosque in consultation with the parties involved in the dispute.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Mosque Committee, said that all the orders of the civil court are capable of creating a grave mischief and are in the teeth of the injunction provided by the 1991 Act.
The bench said that since the application of Order 7 Rule 11 is pending, the court will direct it to be taken up first and it would not allow the commission’s report to be opened before deciding the application.
Vaidyanathan said that the Supreme Court should not tie the hands of the district judge and the commission’s report needs to be considered for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11.
Ahmadi objected to the submission and said that the commission’s report is selectively leaked and an attempt is being made to create a narrative and it should be nipped in the bud.
By the orders of the civil court, the status quo which was prevailing for the past 500 years is now being altered. As the place has been sealed, which was used for worshipping for the past 500 years, he said.
The bench said it is doing a free dialogue with the parties without coming to any conclusion and told Ahmadi that if their application of Order 7 Rule 11 is allowed, then will it not nullify the impact of all the orders passed by the civil court including that appointment of commissioners and survey of the area.
Ahmadi said that these orders have caused public mischief across the country after the commission’s reports were selectively leaked and a narrative is being sought to be built.
On May 17, the Varanasi court, which had ordered the videography survey of the Gyanvapi Masjid complex, removed Advocate Commissioner Ajay Mishra for displaying “irresponsible behaviour towards the discharge of his duties” and granted time till Friday to the commission to file the survey report.