Gyanvapi Dispute | Supreme Court Dismisses Mosque Committee's Challenge To Allahabad HC CJ Transferring Case To Himself From Another Bench

The Supreme Court on Friday (November 3) refused to interfere with the order passed by Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker transferring the cases concerning Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Mosque dispute to his bench from the bench of another judge.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Anjuman Intezemia Masazid Varanasi (which manages the Gyanvapi mosque) challenging the High Court Chief Justice's transfer order.The issue relates to the petitions filed by the Masjid Committee challenging the maintainability of the suits filed by Hindu worshippers seeking right of worship in the Gyanvapi mosque as barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Masjid Committee, submitted that a bench of Justice Prakash Padia had completed the hearing in the matter and was to pronounce the judgment on August 25. However, on the very same day, the Chief Justice withdrew the matter from Justice Padia, citing the reason that the judge could not have retained the matter despite the roster change. At the very outset itself, the Supreme Court expressed its disinclination to interfere with the High Court Chief Justice's order. CJI Chandrachud pointed out that the previous judge had not delivered the judgment despite reserving it in 2021 and holding seventy five hearings. Ahmadi then said that it was a "sensitive issue" and added that the Committee would not have challenged the Chief Justice's order had it not been "an abuse of process".Ahmadi argued that it was not open to any litigant to state that a matter should be heard by a particular judge. He further asserted that the single judge had been hearing the matter since 2021 and in 2023 also, the single judge heard the matter after the subject-roster was reassigned to him. Two days after the single judge reserved the judgment, a complaint was filed before the Chief Justice against Justice Padia retaining the matter. Ahmadi submitted–"He files complaint after the judgement is reserved. It is that stage, the matter is removed from his court. It is browbeating a judge...Because the matter was part heard, the matter kept on being listed before the judge and the judge kept hearing because there was no roster. A litigant cannot choose the judge..."Ahmadi further took objection to the Chief Justice's order using harsh critical words such as "judicial impropriety".Ahmadi also submitted that the copy of the complaint on which the impugned order was based was not furnished to his client. He further said that the single judge had been hearing the matter throughout with the consent of all parties and the complaint was filed only after the judgment was reserved after seeing "where the wind is blowing to".However, the bench pointed out to two particular paragraphs( 11 & 12) in the Chief Justice's order and said that they contained sufficient reasons justifying the transfer. CJI orally remarked–"Look at what the learned Chief Justice said in the last three lines- we don't want to read it in open court. You must know what weighed with us. The last sentence particularly. This is extraordinary. Never happened. It goes back to the registry, can't be in chambers of the judge. There are grounds by the Chief Justice. We'll leave it at that. I don't want to say much, there is a reason for it...para 11 and 12 put a little disquiet in our mind. Those two sentences, they are enough for us."The CJI was referring to the paragraphs of the CJ's order which stated that the files were retained in the chambers of Justice Padia and were never sent to the parent section of the High Court registry which was responsible for listing of the cases.During the hearings, the CJI asked– "If we don't trust persons in charge in HCs where will the system go?"Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker, in his order dated August 28, cited an administrative order passed by the High Court in 2013 as per which "no pending case, civil or criminal, shall be treated as part-heard or tied up in a Court after the commencement of a new roster".CJ said that the non-observance of the procedure in listing the cases, passing of successive orders for reserving the judgment and again listing the cases before the Judge (Justice Prakash Padia) for hearing even though he no longer had the jurisdiction as per the the roster, had led to the withdrawal of the cases from his bench. In the complaint before Chief Justice Diwaker, the primary argument raised by the counsel for one of the parties was that after 35 hearings in the matter, Justice Padia reserved the Judgment in the matter for the first time in March 2021, however, the Judgment was not delivered for 7 months and the matter was again directed to be listed along with other writ petitions in October 2021.Thereafter, the case was heard for around 12 months and judgment was reserved on November 28, 2022 and the matter was...

Gyanvapi Dispute | Supreme Court Dismisses Mosque Committee's Challenge To Allahabad HC CJ Transferring Case To Himself From Another Bench

Padmakshi Sharma

Tags