What Is This PIL Business?: SC Asks While Dismissing Plea Seeking Enquiry By Judicial Commission Into Controversial Structure In Gyanvapi Mosque
|The Supreme Court, today, dismissed a Special Leave Petition against the order dismissing a PIL seeking the appointment of a commission headed by a sitting or retired Supreme Court or High Court Judge, to study the nature of the structure found within the Gyanvapi campus to ascertain whether it is a Shivling, as claimed by the Hindu Side or a fountain, as claimed by the Muslims.
Finding no merits in the matter, the Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed the SLP. The CJI remarked, "Gyanvapi matter is a subject matter of a suit pending before a District Judge in Varanasi, what is this PIL business? That you suddenly filed a PIL... It's a subject matter of suit out of which some interim orders have come before us. We will dismiss it as there is nothing in this matter."
The counsel representing the petitioner had requested a passover since the main counsel was not available. "I am not aware of the facts. Could you please take it up after lunch as the senior counsel is currently appearing in another court?" urged the counsel. However, the Bench, refusing to grant a passover, dismissed the Special Leave Petition based on merits. "We are aware of the facts as we burn the midnight oil," remarked the Chief Justice.
The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed to challenge the Allahabad High Court's order, which refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which sought the appointment of a committee or commission, led by a judge from either the High Court or the Supreme Court, whether sitting or retired to examine the nature of the structure located within the Gyanvapi campus. The PIL also sought to take appropriate actions based on the findings of this report, if the structure is indeed a Shiva Lingam, the request was to permit devotees to worship it. Conversely, if it is a fountain, the aim is to restore its functionality.
However, in the impugned order, the High Court had stated, "We are of the considered opinion that it is not proper on the part of the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court by filing· a Public Interest Litigation seeking a relief regarding the subject matter, which is already the subject matter of the pending suits as also of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition. For the aforesaid reason, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition."
The High Court had also stated that the present petition, which has although been styled as 'Public interest Litigation', but which does not contain any mention of any legally enforceable right of the public at large having been infringed or denied and it appears that the petition has been filed merely in order to gain some publicity. "The filing of a Public Interest Litigation for the oblique motive of gaining publicity, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, needs to be nipped in the bud by dismissing the same at the admission stage itself", noted the order.
In the SLP filed through the Advocate-on-Record Satyajeet Kumar it was submitted that the prayer made by the petitioners was highly relevant intending to seek a solution to the communal tension that has been prevalent in the country since the emergence of the disputed structure.
Cause Title: Sudhir Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [Diary No.- 24471 - 2022]