A Bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker of the Allahabad High Court consigned to records the objection filed by the petitioners Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi (Mosque Committee in the Gyanvyapi dispute). They had objected to the propriety of the court proceeding with the hearing of their cases. They argued that a Single Judge had already heard the matter on approximately 75 dates and had reserved the judgment on July 25, 2023, with the delivery date set for Aug 28, 2023. They contended that the cases should not have been withdrawn from that judge and that the administrative decision to do so was improper.

The next hearing is scheduled on September 12, 2023.

Advocate S.F.A. Naqvi appeared for the Petitioner and Advoates Ajay Kumar Singh and Vijai Shankar Rastogi appeared for the Respondents

The Court mentioned an administrative order dated December 16, 2013, which regulates the listing of cases before judges based on a roster system.

The Court referenced a Full Bench judgment (Amar Singh vs. State of U.P.) that clarified the interpretation of the administrative order. It highlighted that the administrative order requires cases to be placed before the Chief Justice for nomination when a judge ceases to have jurisdiction based on the roster.

The Court stated that despite this requirement, the original judge continued to hear the cases for more than two years without obtaining proper nomination. The procedural issue came to light when a complaint was made to the Chief Justice on the administrative side, pointing out the violation of listing procedures.

The complaint provided details of the multiple hearings, reservations of judgment, and the subsequent relisting of the cases before the same judge.

The Court referenced a Supreme Court judgment (Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar) that emphasized the need for judgments to be delivered promptly, with specific guidelines for pronouncing judgments within a reasonable time frame.

It mentioned another recent Supreme Court case (Umesh Rai vs. State of U.P.) that disapproved of reassigning a case to the same bench after a delay in judgment delivery.

Finally, the Court described the decision taken by the Chief Justice on the administrative side to withdraw the cases from the original judge for a fresh nomination, citing concerns about judicial propriety and discipline. The Court said, “Thereafter, on 25.8.2023, this bunch of petitions came to be nominated to the present Bench (Chief Justice). The administrative order of the date reads as under: “Be placed before CJ (Single Bench) on 28.8.2023. CHIEF JUSTICE 25.08.2023”

“For the reasons enumerated above, the objection raised to the proceedings on behalf of the petitioners is consigned to records.” the Court held.

Earlier on July 24, 2023 the Supreme Court upon an urgent mention of a plea by the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Varanasi had ordered maintenance of status quo on the directions of the Varanasi Court for a scientific survey of the Gyanvapi mosque premises by the Archaeological Survey of India. The Supreme Court had asked the Masjid to approach High Court.

Later, on August 03, 2023 the Allahabad High Court while dismissing the plea by the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, upheld the order of the Varanasi District Court which had directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a "detailed scientific survey" to determine if the Gyanvapi mosque was built at a place where a temple existed earlier.The Mosque committee had again challenged the same by an SLP in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court had refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's ruling, which upheld the Varanasi District Court's order directing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a "detailed scientific survey" to determine if the Gyanvapi mosque was built at a place where a temple existed earlier.

Cause Title: Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi v. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi & Ors.

Click here to read/download Order




Allahabad High CourtChief Justice Pritinker Diwaker

Suchita Shukla