Thread by @barandbench

[#KashiVishwanath Temple- Gyannvapi Mosque Dispute]

#SupremeCourt to hear the plea by the Mosque committee challenging orders directing survey of #GyanvapiMosque. The court will also hear an application seeking to desist trial court from order any demolition of wall etc

Gyanvapi Survey: Read all details of court commissioner's survey report

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

#SupremeCourt
#GyanvapiMosque

Read what the Hindu Parties have told the #SupremeCourt in #GyanvapiMosque case

Determine religious character of Gyanvapi Mosque: Hindu parties to Supreme Court

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

The Masjid committee has filed an application seeking no such demolition near the alleged Shivling structure and that it is an attempt to carry out a "fishing expedition" by the Hindu Side. #Gyanvapi #SupremeCourt

The hearing before the bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud to commence at 3 pm today #SupremeCourt #GyanvapiMosque

Hearing begins

#SupremeCourt #GyanvapiMosque

Sr Adv CS Vidyanathan: I appear for one of the Hindu plaintiffs (respondent No 4)

DYC J: 3 suggestions: 1. the application order 7 rule 11 is pending before trial court we can say let the application be disposed off

#SupremeCourt #GyanvapiMosque

SC: We have passed an interim order making such tentative arrangements and that order can continue till O7R11 application is decided. then order can be challenged. Or thirdly. in this sensitive matter, the suit should be heard by a District judge

#SupremeCourt #GyanvapiMosque

SC: A slightly more seasoned and mature hand hear this. No aspersion on trial judge. he is part of our system. this will benefit all the parties

#SupremeCourt #GyanvapiMosque

Vaidyanathan: today the SLP is infructuous since all three orders have been complied with. Religious character of the mosque has to be decided. the commission report has to be seen by the court.

SC: We took your point, that is why entrusting it to a district judge.

SC: We cannot guide a District judge. Let them handle it, they have enough experience at the bench. We cannot command him to hear it in this way or that way.

#SupremeCourt #GyanvapiMosque

SC: We are not casting any aspersion on any judicial officer. All three of us discussed. This was the best way ahead.

Sr Adv Huzefa Ahmadi: all these orders passed from beginning are capable of creating great public mischief. Its in teeth of an injunction passed by parliament

Ahmadi: right from the date commission was appointed and before that orders were passed, all orders have to be declared non est

SC:O7 R11 application had to be decided first. That has not been done. So to decide whether order of commission was lacking jurisdiction we have to get into Order 7 Rule 11 application outcome. thats why we thought the application can be decided and our interim order can continue

SC: our order was to create a balance. Now they would not have an objection to this

Vaidyanathan: Let not the judge decide O7 R11 first and let the judge decide

SC: No we cannot put that application in the backburner. we cannot tie his hands. You make your submissions there

Ahmadi: my challenge is to the order appointing commission itself, it is prohibited by the 1991 act and the constitution itself. Act says such controversies will create great public mischief. Commission report is being selectively leaked. This must be interdicted here

Ahmadi: It is not so simple that the case is sent back and the court wants to maintain status quo, this status quo has already been altered by virtue of plaintiff providing what happened in the commission enquiry. This status quo they want to continue

Ahmadi: they are succeeding in getting a place sealed which was being used by this part for the next 500 years.

SC: We have to rise at 4 pm today.

SC: We would have gladly come back from the farewell and hear the case again

Justice Surya Kant: whatever the preliminary submissions you point out, suppose your O7 R11 application is allowed all your challenge to orders will become nullity?

Ahmadi: till that application is decided what will happen in the ground? You have to see how this case is being used for 4 or 5 mosques across the country. this will create public mischief which the act wanted to avoid. taste of the pudding is in the eating

Ahmadi: if today this is allowed, and tomorrow you say that another mosque was temple, not even a title suit. Then report of the commission is leaked. a narrative is being created. look at the egregious effect it has on the ground, Look at how this is being raked across India

SC: This is a civil suit under section 9 of CPC, if we accept your submission that appointment of commissioner was against the 1991 act and without jurisdiction. Right?

Ahmadi: my submission is different. a suit could not even proceed...

SC: moment you say that frame of suit is barred under 1991 act then you are raking order 7 rule 11 point. you are not arguing that application before the supreme court, but you say that commission was void ab initio.

SC: but the issue is to accept this argument, it is for us to comment on maintainability of the suit. supreme court cannot say suo motu it will decide maintainability of the suit. we have to follow due process of law.

SC: Let the District judge handle this with 20 t0 30 years of experience in Judiciary.

Ahmadi: to decide the correctness of the order of commission, prima facie..

SC: Prima facie if we hold in your favour they are ousted under O7R11 and if we hold against then you are ousted

SC: Having seen merit in your argument, we are not allowing trial court to run amuck. Therefore we hold the balance. We have created a framework to maintain peace and an atmosphere of fraternity between communities as constitution envisages and its our duty to uphold that msg

SC: If there is suggestion to tweak the order to maintain peace on the ground then please tell us.

Ahmadi: HC has wrongly upheld the commission conducting survey. please see the 1991 act.

SC: There is another way. you have challenged the appointment of commission. if you succeed under order 7 rule 11 all comes to an end, if you fail in the application, we can post this SLP a little later after the vacation, so that in case you fail this appeal will be pending

Sr Adv Ranjit Kumar for Hindu parties: the order passed in September 2021 has worked itself out,

SC: If Mr Ahmadi succeeds then the basis of that order will be taken away

SC: there is merit that challenge to the appointment of commission overlaps with order 7 rule 11 application. So we can keep this slp pending and let that application be decided and hold the status quo

SC: These are complex social problems and no solution by the human being can be perfect. our order is to maintain a certain degree of peace and calm. Interim orders calms some frayed nerves with some healing touch.

SC: We are here in a joint mission to preserve a sense of unification in the country. Once commission report is there, there cannot be selective leaks. Do not leaks thing to the press. Only judge opens the report.

Ahmadi: HC did not interfere with the appointment of commission because they say it is only a fact finding commission. HC says it is innocuous. We challenged it and CJI granted us indulgence. Then in interim commission proceeding progresses.

Ahmadi: while commission is in progress, an application was made to the court ex parte citing commission proceedings. It is not a shivling as per us, it is a fountain

Vaidyanathan intervenes

Ahmadi: this is nothing but an attempt to gag which is unbecoming of traditions of SC

Ahmadi: now that entire area is out of bounds for us

SC: No namaz is allowed?

Ahmadi: it is allowed but wazu khana is sealed and iron gates are placed with heavy police presence

SC: Take it worst against you. suppose you lose order 7 rule 11, you can go to HC and then appeal in Supreme Court, we will keep this SLP also pending. You can let it stand over and let it O7 R11 be decided. We can pass protective arrangements for wazu

SG: Arrangements have been made for wazu

Ahmadi: you are changing the status quo of this place

Vaidyanathan: desecration is also not the norm

Ahmadi: this is not the way not the way

SC: You are speaking with us, you are seasoned hand

SG says he will take instructions on arrangements being made for Wazu

Ahmadi: Please see the places of worship act and it envisages the situation that has arisen today since it spoils the communal atmosphere in the country

Justice Chandrachud asks for the Places of Worship Act

Ahmadi reads the objects and reasons of the 1991 act
"Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on Aug 15, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto"

SC: But that earlier suit is not a title suit but a right to worship

Ahmadi: that is worse! can it be decided without a declaratory relief.

SC: We have dealt with this in Ayodhya judgment, what section 4(1) does is...

Ahmadi: crux is section 3 milords

SC; Read section 3

Section 3: Bar of conversion of places of worship .No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination

Ahmadi: there is no exception to section 3. change of religious character of a place of worship is expressly barred. you appointed a commission to see whether there are deities or symbols. that is precisely prohibited

DYC J: ascertainment of religious character IS NOT BARRED under section 3 of the 1991 act. 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

DYC J: here a structure of Zoroastrian faith will not make the Christian structure Zoroastrian or vice versa, But the ascertainment if religious character of a place may not necessarily fall foul of section 3 of the 1991 act.

Ahmadi: the religious character of the mosque as on August 15, 1947 is not in dispute

opposite side: strongly in dispute

Ahmadi: you may think so. if this is entertained then the 1991 act may be only a dead letter. This is the controversy the act wanted to avoid.

Justice Chandrachud discusses whether hearing should resume post Justice Rao's farewell

Sr Adv Kumar: please have it on Monday or Tuesday. But not today milords

SG: not today appears a general consensus. There is a vacation and the lordships may have some plans. the interim orders have balanced the equity

Ahmadi: if we are having this after the vacations..

Ahmadi: even after that order where the area should be protected, that shivling or fountain is in centre of the pond. that middle area can be protected. But let the pond be used. this is an attempt to gag

Ahmadi: let the tap water be used atleast

SC: We dont have the photographs

SG: Let the commission report be presented. Using pond water will lead to law and order situation

Justice Narasimha: that May 16 order was not challenged before the HC since you say it was an ex parte order.

Ahmadi: if the appointment of commission is challenged itself then how can we challenge it

SC ORDER

Having regard to the sensitivity of this civil suit case. this case before the civil judge Varanasi shall STAND TRANSFERRED and be HEARD BY Senior and Experienced judicial officer of UP Judicial services.

SC: Thus case transferred from civil judge senior division Varanasi to district judge Varanasi. The application filed by plaintiff under O7 R11 CPC shall be decided on priority by the district judge on transfer of suit

SC: Our interim order dated May 17 shall continue to remain in applicating till O7 R11 Application is decided and thereafter for 8 weeks so that parties aggrieved by district judge order can challenge the same

SC: Unless due arrangements have been made for wuzu we request the district magistrate to consult with parties and appropriate arrangements been made for wazu.

Ahmadi: why alternate arrangements

SC: our order does not say alternate

SC: The order passed by civil judge senior judge Varanasi on May 16 shall be subsumed by the order of this court on May 17.
#GyanvapiMosque #SupremeCourt

SG: please add that the there is no aspersions on the judge

Sr Adv Kumar: The application under Order 10 Rule 2 has to be decided also.

SC: Validity of the appointment of commissioner has already been decided by HC. We are seized of the matter

SC: We direct the District Magistrate the decide the O7 R11 application on priority #supremecourt #gyanvapi

Matter to be listed after vacations.

SC: We hope everyone has a happy and healthy vacation since most are going out.

hearing ends

#supremecourt #gyanvapi

corrigendum: SC: We "direct" the District Magistrate to make appropriate arrangements for wazu in consultation with parties #supremecourt #gyanvapi