Gyanvapi - Kashi Vishwanath case: Allahabad High Court objects to parties, lawyers speaking to media

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday objected to lawyers and parties in the Gyanvapi mosque - Kashi Vishwanath temple case speaking to media about the case and developments in court. .Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal urged lawyers and parties to refrain from giving media bytes on the case while the case is still pending before the Court."I have a request. Aap log TV baazi ya statements mat dijiey (Translation: Please don't give statements to the media/ TV). Matter decide how jaey phir kahiey (Translation: Let the matter be decided, then you may do that). Once the matter is sub-judice, the same should not be discussed. Apke bade bade log statements de rahein hai. Unhe mana kariey (Translation: Your known lawyers are giving such statements, please ask them not to do it)," the judge said.The judge was hearing a plea filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee challenging a January 31 district court order permitting the conduct of Hindu prayers in the southern cellar or basement (tekhana) of the Gyanvapi Mosque..The Court also orally remarked today that multiple suits in the matter were complicating the issue. The Court proceeded to question the timing of the Hindu side's claim that Hindu prayers were earlier offered by Somnath Vyas and his family in the mosque's cellar until 1993 when the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led government allegedly put an end to it."Did Somnath Vyas amend the suit of 1991 after the 1993 incident? …Your right (Somnath Vyas') has extinguished, then how can you maintain the suit? Allegations are against the State government, but they are not the party to the suit. Your suits are complicating the matter. The basic issue is not being decided. This (multiple applications) is all a publicity stunt. How many suits are pending regarding the issue? All these issues should be clubbed," the judge remarked."It is a continuing wrong. That is why a fresh suit was filed," asserted advocate Vishnu Jain who appeared for the Hindu side..Meanwhile, Senior Advocate SFA Naqvi, appearing for the mosque committee opposed the Hindu's side's claim of offering prayers in the mosque's basement."There is a deed in which respondents (Hindu side) are saying that they are not offering any prayer…There is no occasion to file this suit after 31 years ... A person has relinquished his rights; then how can he claim the same in 2023? ... This is an artificial litigation and there is no cause of action," Naqvi said..Notably, the Muslim side has maintained that Muslims always had possession over the mosque's building..The main dispute over the Gyanvapi compound involves a claim by the Hindu side that a section of an ancient temple on the said land was destroyed during the rule of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in the 17th century.On the other hand, the Muslim side has maintained that the mosque predated Aurangzeb's reign and that it had endured various alterations over time.Amid this ongoing dispute, a district court in Varanasi on January 31 directed a receiver to allow Hindu parties to offer prayers and puja in the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi Mosque.The mosque committee has challenged the Varanasi court order before the Allahabad High Court..The High Court had earlier, on February 2, declined to stay the January 31 district court order in question and granted the Muslim side time to amend its pleadings to include a challenge to a January 17 order, consequent to which the January 31 order was passed.Today, Justice Agarwal was told that the January 31 order was passed on an application that had earlier been disposed of on January 17. The judge, therefore, questioned how the January 31 order could have been passed if no fresh application had been filed for the same. .Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain replied that the January 31 order was passed since the January 17 order did not address one of the prayers made by the Hindu side. Jain asserted that the district court had inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to pass such an order..Meanwhile, Naqvi (for the Muslim side) questioned whether the district judge could have permitted Hindu prayers in the mosque's basement at an interim stage of the dispute. He went on to reiterate concerns about the hasty implementation of the January 31 order."In the operative portion (of the January 31 order) there is no mention as to how the order will be served to the District Magistrate (court receiver) … Without a certified copy, how the DM reached the spot? Entire records must be summoned regarding the procedure as to how the DM received this order ... How did the DM get to know about the (January 31) order? … DM committed contempt," Naqvi argued.Advocate Puneet Gupta also appeared for the Muslim side. He argued that the district court's January 31 order was without reason and ought to be set aside. .The matter is slated to be heard again on Wednesday. .[Read live coverage of hearing today]