Supreme Court sends Gyanvapi case to district judge

 

Supreme Court sends Gyanvapi case to district judge The Supreme Court on Friday transferred the Gyanvapi Masjid suit proceedings from a civil judge to the district judge of Varanasi, saying the social complexities of the dispute required a “more senior and experienced judicial officer” at the helm. A Special Bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud directed the district judge to hear on priority a challenge moved by the Anjuman Intejamia Masjid, the mosque’s caretakers, against the suit filed last year by five Hindu women who want untrammelled rights to worship Maa Shringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, Lord Hanuman and other “visible and invisible deities” within the mosque premises. The Anjuman argues that the suit is barred by law. Meanwhile, the apex court said its May 17 interim order to protect the area where a  shivling was reportedly found would continue while Muslims would be able to offer  namaaz in the mosque. The court ordered the District Magistrate to make appropriate arrangements, if not already made, for Muslims to offer  wazu khana before  namaaz at the mosque. Though the Bench acknowledged that the complex case needed a “seasoned” hand like the District Judge, it did not heed repeated requests from the Anjuman, represented by senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, to “nip in the bud” a string of earlier orders passed by the civil judge. Mr. Ahmadi said the civil judge’s  ex parte orders had ranged from constituting an advocate commission to conduct a videographic survey of the mosque grounds to sealing of the premises after the  shivling was said to have been found. The senior lawyer said these orders, unless set aside, would “fester”.   They could even reduce the Places of Worship Act of 1991, a law which protects the identity of religious places of worship, into a “dead-letter”. Mr. Ahmadi submitted that “there is a massive police presence, iron gates have been put up… The orders were not just about the appointment of a Commission, but they altered the  status quo that has been existing for 500 years.” He said the 1991 Act prohibited conversion of religious places of worship and mandated that the character of religious places of worship as on August 15, 1947 cannot be altered to that of another denomination. But Justice Chandrachud said a mere “ascertainment of the religious character of a place is not barred by the Act”. The judge indicated that the advocate-commissioner’s survey was merely of a procedural nature for determining the religious character of the place.  The Hindu editorial points out that anyone familiar with the history of the Ayodhya dispute, which led to the Babri Masjid’s demolition, riots and bombings, will understand that all such attempts to change the character of places of worship have a motive of using religion for political ends and marginalising minorities. “It is up to the courts to act early and act decisively to uphold the spirit of the Places of Worship Act and preserve communal peace,” it said. As another minority place of worship is targeted in Mathura, and a suit will be entertained, all eyes are on the courts and this makes the story important.