Do not leak things to Press, only judge opens report: SC
The Supreme Court on Friday transferred the Gyanvapi mosque case from Civil Judge to District Judge, Varanasi and said because of 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.
The SC also took exception to selective leak of the survey report submitted by the court commissioners to the civil court, Varanasi. The apex court said once the report is presented, there could not be selective leaks. “Do not leak things to the Press, only the judge opens the report,” it said.
The top court said its earlier interim order of May 17 directing protection of the area where “shivling” is said to be found and allowing Muslims to offer “namaz” on mosque premises shall remain in operation till the maintainability of the suit is decided by the District Judge and thereafter for eight weeks to allow the aggrieved parties to approach the higher court.
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. In an important observation, the top court also said 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 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 who was earlier dealing with the suit.
“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) to the court of the District Judge, Varanasi for trial, and 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 SC directed the District Judge to decide on the priority of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC (on maintainability) filed by the mosque committee, which said the civil suit is barred by the 1991 Act, be decided upon the transfer of papers of suit from the Civil Judge (senior division).
“The application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC shall be decided on priority by the District Judge on the transfer of the suit,” it said and posted the matter for further hearing in the second week of July.
Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for one of the Hindu devotees, who has filed the suit said the appeals filed by the mosque committee have become infructuous against the order of the Allahabad High Court as all the orders of the trial court concerning the survey has been complied with. Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the mosque committee, said 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.
Ahmadi objected to the submission and said 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”. 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 it will nullify the impact of all the orders passed by the civil court including that appointment of commissioners and survey of the area.
Ahmadi contended that what was found inside was not a shivling but a fountain, and that the “wazu khana” is sealed and iron gates placed there under heavy police presence. To this, the SC said ascertainment of religious character was not barred under Section 3 of the 1991 Places of Worship Act. “Forget there is a mosque on one side and a temple on the other. Suppose there is a Parsi temple and there is a cross in the corner of the area. Does the presence of ‘agyari’ make the cross ‘agyari’ or ‘agyari’ Christian? This hybrid character is not unknown. Here a structure of Zoroastrian faith will not make the Christian structure Zoroastrian or vice versa, but the ascertainment of religious character of a place may not necessarily fall foul of Section 3 of the 1991 Act,” the apex court said.