The Allahabad High Court on Thursday stayed a Varanasi courtroom order for an “archaeological survey” of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi Mosque complicated for figuring out if any temple ever existed rather than the mosque.
Justice Prakash Padia additionally stayed all additional proceedings earlier than the Varanasi fast-track civil courtroom on the plea searching for the archaeological survey of the temple-mosque complicated.
Justice Padia stayed the Varanasi civil courtroom order, ruling that the subordinate courtroom handed its order ignoring the truth that the excessive courtroom had reserved its verdict on the plea difficult the maintainability of the go well with which had been filed earlier within the decrease courtroom for the survey.
The excessive courtroom gave its order on two pleas, filed respectively by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board and Anjuman Intazamia Masazid, Varanasi, difficult the April eight order of the Varanasi fast-track courtroom.
“From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the judgment was reserved in all pending petitions by this court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length on March 15 this year,” Justice Padia identified.
“The court below has the full knowledge of the fact that the judgement has already been reserved on March 15,” he mentioned.
“In this view of the matter, the court below should not have proceeded and decided the application filed by the plaintiffs in the Original Suit for the survey by Archaeological Survey of India,” Justice Padia added.
“In the opinion of this court, the court below should have waited for the verdict on the petitions pending before the high court and not proceeded further in the matter till a judgement was delivered,” he mentioned.
The excessive courtroom additionally directed that until the following date of listening to all additional proceedings on the go well with pending earlier than the decrease courtroom for the survey of the dual shrine complicated shall stay stayed.
Giving three weeks to all respondents’ counsel to file their replies to the pleas of UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and Anjuman Intazamia Masazid, Varanasi, the excessive courtroom mounted October eight to listen to the problem.
The petitioners’ counsel had earlier contended that the Varanasi courtroom’s order was “not legally tenable” as a result of the very go well with on which the decrease courtroom gave its order was non-maintainable.
The counsel had contended that part four of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, bars the submitting of any go well with or instituting any authorized continuing in any courtroom searching for any change within the non secular character of anyplace of worship because it existed on August 15, 1947.
As per the 1991 Act, no reduction may have been sought or given on any plea searching for any change within the standing of any non secular place because it existed on August 15, 1947, the petitioners’ counsel contended.
They additionally argued that when the excessive courtroom had already reserved its judgment on the problem of maintainability of the go well with pending earlier than the Varanasi civil choose, the subordinate courtroom couldn’t have determined the problem.
The Varanasi senior division civil courtroom had given its order on a plea filed by advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi in 2019.
Rastogi had moved the Varanasi civil courtroom because the ‘next friend’ of “the self-existing Lord Vishweshvar Kashi Vishwanath”, within the deity’s standing as a ‘legal person’ below a doctrine of “legal fiction”.
According to this doctrine, non-living entities together with banks, firms and even deities, however not mosques, are presumed to be living individuals for adjudication of any matter involving them and such entities are represented within the courtroom by what is named their “next friend”.
The Varanasi civil courtroom had requested the Uttar Pradesh authorities to get examined the disputed premises of the dual shrine by a five-member ASI group.
The subordinate courtroom had additionally stipulated that at the very least two members of the five-member ASI group of eminent archaeologists needs to be from the minority group.