SC Junks Plea against Allahabad HC Order Withdrawing Gyanvapi Cases from Single-judge Bench

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with the order passed by the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court withdrawing the cases concerning the Kashi Vishwanath - Gyanvapi mosque land title dispute from the single-judge bench of Justice Prakash Padia.

CJI Chandrachud while listening to petitioners on Friday said the court should not interfere with the order of the Chief Justice.

He further observed that judges tend to keep control over matters. "In high courts, it's a very standard practice. This must lie in the realm of the HC chief justice."

The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid committee (which manages Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi) had filed a petition in the apex court against the withdrawal of cases from the bench of Justice Prakash Padia

The Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court had stated that the decision was taken by him on the administrative side "in the interest of judicial propriety and judicial discipline as well as the transparency in the listing of cases".

While hearing the petitioners, the CJI questioned why 75 hearings were carried out on such a small issue.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, who was appearing for the petitioners, said the order passed by CJ High Court was actually an abuse of process and that's why he approached the court.

He contended that it is not open to any litigant to say that my matter should be heard by 'X' judge.

The CJI, however, was unconvinced and said, "If we don't trust persons in charge in the high court where will the system go?"

In August, the High Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker, on the administrative side, decided to withdraw the cases from the bench saying that it would be in the interest of judicial propriety and judicial discipline as well as the transparency in the listing of cases, to withdraw the aforesaid cases from the Bench (Prakash Padia, J).

In the August order, the HC had said, "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."