Supreme Court denies urgent hearing on Gyanvapi mosque plea, directs committee to approach high court
The Gyanvapi mosque committee argued that the administration's actions in the middle of the night were hastily pre-empting any legal challenge they might bring against the Varanasi Court's order.
FollowThe legal battle over the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi continues as the mosque committee's attempt to secure an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court faced a setback. Following a Varanasi District Court's order permitting Hindus to conduct prayers in the southern cellar of the mosque, the committee sought a status quo through an urgent application.
Lawyers for the mosque committee approached the residence of a Supreme Court registrar, expressing concerns about nighttime prayers inside the mosque. However, the registrar conveyed the Chief Justice of India's instructions that the matter be taken to the Allahabad High Court.
Interim Budget 2024 highlights: No populist measures, tax rates unchanged in general election year
The Gyanvapi mosque committee argued that the administration's actions in the middle of the night were hastily pre-empting any legal challenge they might bring against the Varanasi Court's order.
In a letter to the Supreme Court registry, the committee emphasized the lack of urgency, as the trial court had provided a week for necessary arrangements. They alleged collusion between the administration and the plaintiffs to prevent the mosque committee from challenging the order effectively.
The application was filed as an interlocutory plea in an ongoing Special Leave Petition by the committee challenging a 2022 order allowing the appointment of a Court Commissioner to inspect the mosque. The mosque committee contended that the Varanasi Court's recent order violated a May 2022 Supreme Court interim order clarifying Muslims' rights to access the mosque for Namaz and religious observances.
Last August, the Supreme Court granted permission for the Archaeological Survey of India to survey the mosque premises, excluding the 'wuzukhana' area where a 'shivling' was claimed to have been found, to determine if the mosque was built over a pre-existing Hindu temple structure. The legal battle underscores the complex religious and historical issues surrounding the contested site.
