Kashi Vishwanath Gyanvapi case | Plea against ’91 suit: HC reserves verdict

The Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee (AIMC) and UP Sunni Central Board of Waqfs challenged the suit stating that it is barred by Places of Worship Act (special provisions) Act, 1991.

This Act of 1991 prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

“After hearing the case three consecutive days, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal reserved the judgment on Friday,” said advocate SFA Naqvi, who is representing the committee.

Last month, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea by the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee challenging Allahabad High Court Chief (now retired) Justice Pritinker Diwaker’s order withdrawing the Gyanvapi case concerning the dispute over the mosque from a single-judge bench before which it was pending. The committee manages the mosque located in the Gyanvapi complex.

“There are grounds by the Chief Justice. We will leave it at that,” Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, presiding over a three-judge bench, said while refusing to interfere with the August 28 high court order.

Chief Justice Diwaker withdrew the case from a single bench of Justice Prakash Padia, acting on a complaint filed by the counsel for one of the parties on July 27, 2023.

Appearing for the mosque committee, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi said the matter in which the committee challenged the maintainability of suits filed by Hindu worshippers seeking the right of worship in the mosque was withdrawn from the bench of Justice Padia citing procedural reasons, after he had reserved the judgment on August 25.

As per Chief Justice Diwaker’s order, Justice Padia heard the matter first in 2021 and reserved it for judgment on March 15, 2021, but the judgment was never delivered. Thereafter, it was re-heard by Justice Padia in 2022. He took up the matter again on August 25, 2023, and reserved the judgment.

The Chief Justice’s order noted that after 2021, “the cases…continued to be listed before” Justice Padia, though he had “ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter as per roster”. It pointed out that as per an administrative order of the Chief Justice, dated December 16, 2013, the appropriate course of action in such a situation was to place the matter before the Chief Justice, who would take a call, but this was not done.

Chief Justice Diwaker retired on November 22 and after his retirement, the case was listed before Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal.