New Delhi: The survey report was’selectively disclosed’ to the public, according to the Supreme Court, which is hearing an appeal to the Varanasi court’s survey order for the Gyanvapi Mosque complex.
A higher court in Uttar Pradesh will examine the issue involving reports of Hindu idols at Varanasi’s Gyanvapi mosque. The Supreme Court stated in its decision that it would be “better if a more seasoned hand handles the matter.”
Hearing a case contesting the recording of Varanasi’s Gyanvapi mosque, the Supreme Court also slammed “selective leaks” to the press, stating they must stop. This comes barely hours after the mosque filming report was handed over to a Varanasi court in a sealed cover on Thursday.
Huzefa Ahmadi, who represented the Muslim side, claimed that the leaked information was widely circulated and that the plaintiff’s “information has transformed the narrative.”
“My challenge is against the order appointing a court commissioner. The Place of Worship Act recognises that this kind of application can cause public mischief. A report of the survey was selectively leaked and it is being pasted everywhere. Information provided by the plaintiff has altered the narrative,” Ahmadi told the court.
“The status quo which was there for 500 years has been modified. A status quo now will be according to the changes made now,” he added.
CS Vaidyanathan, the lawyer appointed by the Hindu side, rubbished Ahmadi’s claims and said that the plea by the Muslim side is infructuous. “It would be appropriate if the commission report is considered by the court,” he said.
Weighing down heavily on the leak, Justice DY Chandrachud said, ” The commission’s report should not be leaked and should be presented before the judge only.”
“The application under maintainability is pending before the trial court. Let that be heard. Contentions of both sides would be kept open. We won’t comment at all,” the court said.
“We are trying to balance both sides; it is like a healing touch for both sides,” the court said.
“We passed an interim order making some arrangements. That order will continue till the maintainability issue is dealt with. We are of the view that the dispute should be heard by the district judge. We want a senior judicial officer to hear the matter since it is a matter of legal nuance,” it added.
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.