Courting delay sc should have ended the gyanvapi matter

Courting delay sc should have ended the gyanvapi matter

The Supreme Court’s decision to shift the Gyanvapi suit from a civil judge to the Varanasi district judge, who the court said is “senior and experienced”, prolongs a matter the apex court could have ended. The Places of Worship Act, 1991, bars conversion of a place of worship, preserves its religious character as it existed at Independence, and by SC’s 2019 interpretation in the Ayodhya judgment, it places “a bar on the institution of fresh suits or legal proceedings”. Having accepted the special leave petition against the Varanasi court ordering a survey, SC should have used its discretionary powers under Article 136 to enforce the 1991 Act, which it praised fulsomely in the Ayodhya judgment.

The district judge will decide first on the Muslim side’s plea for rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Last September too, SC had said that when a suit is barred by law, reliefs sought under it cannot be granted and the plaint is liable to be rejected to “put an end to the sham litigation so that no more judicial time is wasted”. In this case, the 1991 law minces no words in its statement of object and reasons – it says that in view of “controversies arising from time to time on conversion of places of worship” the Act seeks to “foreclose any controversy”.

Equally worrisome is SC’s oral observation that the 1991 Act only bars change in religious character but not ascertainment of religious character. Recall that the Act attempts to “foreclose” controversies. Allowing disputes to fester through ascertainment was clearly not what the Act intended. Not only is judicial time being wasted by such litigation, public order and rule of law are at risk. And just as a reminder, a Mathura court has ruled the 1991 Act doesn’t apply to the Shahi Idgah dispute. SC must act.