On Tuesday, the Allahabad High Court expressed its disapproval regarding lawyers and involved parties in the Gyanvapi mosque-Kashi Vishwanath temple case discussing the case and its proceedings in court with the media.
In the ongoing Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath case, the Allahabad High Court has expressed its disapproval towards the parties and their lawyers for engaging with the media. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, overseeing the case, made a pointed request for restraint, emphasizing the importance of maintaining silence while the matter is still under judicial consideration.
Also read- Allahabad High Court Reviews Plea For Gyanvapi ‘s Wuzukhana (lawchakra.in)
“I have a request. Please don’t give statements to the media/TV. Let the matter be decided, then you may do that. Once the matter is sub-judice, the same should not be discussed. Your known lawyers are giving such statements, please ask them not to do it,”
Justice Agarwal articulated, highlighting the court’s concern over premature discussions in the public domain.
The case in question revolves around a plea by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, which challenges a district court’s January 31 order. This order allowed the conduct of Hindu prayers in the southern cellar or basement (tekhana) of the Gyanvapi Mosque, a decision that has since stirred considerable public and legal debate.
During the proceedings, Justice Agarwal also noted the complexity added by multiple suits related to the matter, questioning the timing and basis of the Hindu side’s claim. The claim in question asserts that Hindu prayers were conducted by Somnath Vyas and his family in the mosque’s cellar until 1993, a practice allegedly halted by the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led government.
“Did Somnath Vyas amend the suit of 1991 after the 1993 incident? …Your right has extinguished, then how can you maintain the suit? Allegations are against the State government, but they are not the party to the suit. Your suits are complicating the matter. The basic issue is not being decided. This is all a publicity stunt. How many suits are pending regarding the issue? All these issues should be clubbed,”
Justice Agarwal remarked, suggesting a consolidation of related legal actions to streamline the judicial process.
Advocate Vishnu Jain, representing the Hindu side, defended the filing of a fresh suit by asserting,
“It is a continuing wrong. That is why a fresh suit was filed.”
This statement underscores the Hindu petitioners’ perspective that the cessation of their religious practices in the mosque’s cellar represents an ongoing infringement of their rights.
On the other side, Naqvi, representing the Muslim committee, raised procedural concerns regarding the district court’s order, particularly questioning the rapid implementation of the January 31 decision and the manner in which it was communicated to the District Magistrate, who acted as the court receiver.
“In the operative portion, there is no mention as to how the order will be served to the District Magistrate… Without a certified copy, how the DM reached the spot? Entire records must be summoned regarding the procedure as to how the DM received this order… How did the DM get to know about the order? … DM committed contempt,”
Naqvi argued, highlighting procedural discrepancies and potential contempt of court.
Advocate Puneet Gupta, also representing the Muslim side, argued for the annulment of the district court’s order, labeling it as unjustified.
As the Allahabad High Court continues to navigate the complexities of this case, the directive against media engagement by involved parties underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring that judicial proceedings are conducted with the utmost integrity and without external influence. The case, set against the backdrop of a historically and religiously sensitive site, remains a focal point of national interest, with its outcomes potentially setting significant precedents in the legal handling of religious and cultural disputes in India.
Also read- Gyanvapi Case: SC Petitioned To Resume Survey For ‘Shivling’ (lawchakra.in)
