Gyanvapi Mosque Case: Supreme Court Posts Masjid Committee's Plea To October, Says It Will Await Trial Court Verdict On Suit's Maintainability
In the Gyanvapi mosque case, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that it will await the decision of the Varanasi District Court on the application filed by the Anjuman Intezemia Masjid Committee (which manages the Gyanvapi mosque) questioning the maintainability of the suit filed by Hindu plaintiffs.Accordingly, the bench adjourned the Special Leave Petition filed by the Masjid...
In the Gyanvapi mosque case, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that it will await the decision of the Varanasi District Court on the application filed by the Anjuman Intezemia Masjid Committee (which manages the Gyanvapi mosque) questioning the maintainability of the suit filed by Hindu plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the bench adjourned the Special Leave Petition filed by the Masjid Committee challenging the Civil Court's orders for commission survey of the mosque to the first week of October.
The Court also refuses to entertain two Writ Petitions which were filed seeking right to worship the "shiv ling" stated to be found in the mosque during the survey and seeking its carbon dating and GPS survey. The petitions were withdrawn with liberty to pursue other remedies available under law, after the Court said that such issues have to be raised in the suit itself.
Courtroom Exchange
During the course of hearing, Justice Chandrachud suggested that the proceedings may not be kept pending before the Supreme Court since the District Court is competent to adjudicate objections to the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and objections to the appointment of a commission under Order 26 CPC.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi appearing for the Masjid Committee responded that the order for commission survey is ex-facie without jurisdiction.
"If I can make out a case that the order appointing commission is illegal, then the report has to be struck off. In my case, there is no situation for ordering commission report. Kindly see what the commission report has led to? The High Court says it is innocuous. But now the entire area has been sealed. A status quo existing for several years has been altered. It has effectively changed the character of a place of worship."
Ahmadi submitted that the order for commission report was passed ex-parte, and they were not permitted to file their objections.
The bench then responded that it shall clarify that all the objections raised by the Respondents to the commission report are open and can be agitated before the trial court.
"One of your grievances is that the commission was appointed ex-parte, that you were not given notice. Now we can pass a protective order, allowing you to raise all objections which you could have raised had notice been issued to you," Justice Chandrachud said.
Justice Surya Kant added that they will direct the trial court to not rely on the commission report without deciding their objections.
Ahmadi responded that such a direction would assume that the High Court's order is correct. "Before the commission was appointed, I raised the objections. Those objections were considered and rejected by trial court. That is when I went to High Court," he submitted.
"There was no cause to order the commission report ex-parte. Post this order, there is a domino effect across the country where similar applications have been filed", Ahmadi submitted.
The Bench said it will await the decision on Order 7 Rule 11 and will keep the SLP pending.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and PS Naramsimha was considering petition filed by the Anjuman Intezemia Masjid Committee (which manages the Gyanvapi Mosque) challenging the survey ordered by the Varanasi Civil Court in a suit filed by five Hindu women seeking right to worship the deities claimed to be inside the masjid.