The Allahabad High Court has deferred the hearing of the contentious Gyanvapi Mosque title dispute to December 1, following a consensus among the counsels for both parties. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker, acceded to the request for adjournment in a case that has been a focal point of religious and historical debate.
Also read- Supreme Court Upholds Transfer Of Gyanvapi Mosque Case Within Allahabad HC (lawchakra.in)
The dispute centers on the petitions filed by the Masjid Committee, which contests the maintainability of the suits by Hindu worshippers. These worshippers are seeking the right to worship at the Gyanvapi mosque, a claim barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.
The Supreme Court had earlier, on November 3, refused to interfere with the order passed by Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker transferring the cases concerning the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Mosque dispute to his bench from that of another judge. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Anjuman Intezemia Masazid Varanasi challenging the High Court Chief Justice’s transfer order.
The background of the cases is steeped in procedural intricacies. On August 11, Chief Justice Diwaker, on the administrative side, withdrew the Gyanvapi title dispute cases from the bench of Justice Prakash Padia
“in the interest of judicial propriety and judicial discipline as well as the transparency in the listing of cases.”
This move came shortly after Justice Padia’s bench, which had been hearing the matter since August 2021, concluded the hearing and reserved the orders in the cases on July 25.
The Chief Justice, in his 12-page order, stated that the withdrawal of the cases from the single Judge (Justice Prakash Padia) was due to a complaint made before him on July 27, 2023, by a counsel of one of the parties to the proceedings. The complaint highlighted that the hearing in the dispute cases was proceeding in derogation of the procedure laid down in law for the listing of the cases as per the rules.
On August 28, when the matters came up for hearing before the CJ bench, the Masjid committee raised an objection that the cases ought not to have been withdrawn from the bench of Justice Prakash Padia, on the administrative side, by the Chief Justice, for being heard all over again. Following this, it filed a formal application seeking disclosure of the identity of the applicant on whose application the cases were transferred.
The Court noted that it is open for any party to apply for inspection of records of the writ proceedings and ascertain the identity of the applicant who filed the application in question. The Court added,
“The limited purpose served by the application in question was that the procedural impropriety arising in the proceedings got highlighted before the Chief Justice, on the administrative side, pursuant to which, mandatory procedures for hearing of writ as per the Rules of the Court were complied with.”
Against this backdrop, the Court dismissed Anjuman Masjid’s plea and posted the matters for hearing on October 4. The case, now scheduled for December 1, continues to draw attention as it involves sensitive issues of religious rights and historical claims.
