Supreme Court orders transfer of Gyanvapi mosque committee’s plea to Varanasi district judge – Henry Club

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the transfer of the proceedings pending before the Varanasi civil judge (senior division) in connection with the Gyanvapi dispute to the Varanasi district judge for trial.

A bench presided by Justice DY Chandrachud said, “Having regard to the complexity of the issues involved in the suit and the sensitivity, we are of the view that the suit before civil judge (senior division) Varanasi should be tried before a senior and experienced judicial officer of the UP higher judicial service. We accordingly order and direct that the suit shall stand transferred from civil judge (senior division), Varanasi, to the court of the district judge, Varanasi, for trial…”

It said that the application filed by the Gyanvapi mosque committee challenging the maintainability of the suit filed by five female Hindu devotees would be decided on priority by the district judge.

The bench also directed that its interim order of May 17, 2022 for protecting the purported “shiva lingam” without impeding the right of Muslims to worship in the mosque would remain in operation pending the disposal of the committee’s application and for eight weeks thereafter so as to enable any party aggrieved by order of the district judge to seek redressal.

The court also asked the district magistrate to ensure that appropriate arrangements are made for wazu (ablution) at the mosque if they are not already made.

The mosque committee contended that the status quo that had existed for the past 500 years had already been changed by the sealing of the premises and therefore even if the matter had to be sent to the judge, the status quo as existed before must remain. However, the court did not pass any order on this request.

The Muslim side had argued that the Varanasi court order appointing a commissioner for inspecting the mosque was in violation of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. However, the apex court said the ascertainment of the religious character of a place was not barred by Section 3 or 4 of the Act.

,