Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

Reexamination of the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi land title dispute case has recently commenced before the bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker of the Allahabad High Court.

When the matter was first placed before the Chief Justice's court on August 28, Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi questioned the propriety on part of the bench to proceed with the hearing of the cases. Their argument was that single judge bench of Justice Prakash Padia had heard the matter on approximately 75 dates and thereafter reserved the judgment for pronouncement which was scheduled on August 28, 2023, instead, the cases were withdrawn from the concerned court, on the administrative side, by the Chief Justice, for being heard all over again.

The Anjuman Intazamia Masazid which manages the affairs of Gyanvapi alleged that this course adopted on the administrative side was against propriety and, therefore, liable to be withdrawn with further directions issued for the cases to be placed before the same bench which had concluded the hearing.

The bench of Chief Justice, in the order dated August 28, 2023, noted that the factual backdrop in which the objection was raised by the mosque management committee was somewhat peculiar.

In the order, the Chief Justice emphasised that it was good that the issue of propriety was raised. "It is the duty of the Court to ensure that the proceedings before it are insulated from any procedural aberration. Judicial proceedings must remain solemn so as to command faith of the citizenry," he stated. 

The Chief Justice highlighted that after the cases were heard on several dates, the proceedings were concluded and judgment was reserved in the matter on March 15, 2023 by the bench of Justice Prakash Padia, however, the judgment was not delivered.

"The cases nevertheless continued to be listed before the same court even after the concerned learned Single Judge ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter as per roster," Chief Justice underscored.

He pointed out that an administrative order of the then Chief Justice dated December 16, 2013 regulates the listing of cases before the learned Judges, as per the roster which required the present bunch of cases to be placed before the Chief Justice for the cases to be nominated to the concerned court so as to vest jurisdiction in the court concerned to proceed with the hearing of cases after the concerned judge had ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter.

"Notwithstanding the above requirement in law the learned Single Judge continued with the hearing of cases, though he had no jurisdiction to hear them as per the roster. No nomination was otherwise obtained from the Chief Justice in terms of the administrative order dated 16.12.2013. The records of present bunch of cases were not even placed before the Chief Justice for necessary orders in terms of the judgement of this Court in Amar Singh (supra). Learned Single Judge, however, continued with the hearing of these cases for more than two years," stressed the Chief Justice. 

He outlined that the jurisdictional impropriety, noticed above, would have gone undetected, but for a complaint made on the administrative side before the Chief Justice, on July 27, 2023, by the counsel appearing for one of the parties to the proceedings which highlighted the fact that hearing was proceeding in these cases in derogation of the procedure laid down in law for listing of the cases as per the rules.

He further highlighted that a report submitted by the registry stated that as per the roster notified on November 22, 2021 and subsequent rosters notified by the Chief Justice, from time to time, these cases could not have been listed before the learned Single Judge without obtaining appropriate nomination from the Chief Justice.

The registry further clarified that the records of these cases were never sent to the parent section in the registry for the procedures to be followed for listing of the cases in terms of the applicable orders, both on the administrative side and the judicial side.

In its report, the registry underscored that all records of leading file alongwith connected cases remained in the chambers of Justice Padia and the cases were listed on the instructions of the Bench Secretary and the officials attached to Justice Padia’s chambers.

As per the registry, the parent section responsible for listing of the cases before the Court had no access to the records of the cases as the files were never sent to the registry, Chief Justice Diwaker underlined. 

He stated that against this backdrop the issue was examined at the level of the Chief Justice on the administrative side and a decision was taken on August 8, 2023 for the cases to be withdrawn from Justice Padia for a fresh nomination.

"It is apt to note that procedural observance in the matter of disposal of cases subserve a larger public interest of ensuring faith in the justice dispensation system and cannot be viewed lightly...Facts of this case pose a more troubled scenario of procedural aberration," Chief Justice stated. 

"The non observance of procedure in listing of the cases, passing of successive orders for reserving the judgment and again listing the cases before the learned Judge for hearing, though he no longer had jurisdiction in the matter as per the roster, under the directions received from the chamber of learned Judge, without allowing the parent section in the office to have access to the records of these cases are instances of non observance of procedure settled for listing and hearing of cases. It is this concern of propriety which has compelled the Chief Justice to pass following orders on the administrative side on 11.08.2023," he added. 

The Chief Justice, therefore, ordered that for the "reasons enumerated above, the objection raised to the proceedings on behalf of the petitioners is consigned to records".

The matter will be next heard on September 12, 2023.

Case Title: Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi v. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others and Connected matters