New Delhi: Video footage and pictures from the court-mandated survey of the Gyanvapi mosque complex in Uttar Pradesh’s Varanasi were reportedly leaked on Monday, May 31; the same day that they were made available to the parties involved in the dispute.
According to a report by the Hindustan Times, pictures and footage from the survey surfaced on social media platforms and were even broadcast on certain TV channels on Monday.
Earlier on Monday, the Varanasi district court, hearing the case, had passed an order allowing the findings of the survey to be shared with the parties in the case based on an application filed by the five petitioners in the case demanding the same.
The pictures and footage from the survey were submitted to the court on May 19.
While the five Hindu women petitioners had demanded the findings from the survey, the Anjuman Intezamia Mosque committee, which looks after the Gyanvapi mosque complex, had objected to the findings being made public.
While passing the order allowing for the findings to be given to the parties, the court had added the disclaimer that the footage was only being provided so that both sides could go through it to raise any objections to the survey commissioner’s report.
The court had clarified that no pictures or footage shared with the parties was to be made available to the public or put to any unauthorised use without the permission of the court.
Also read: As Islamic Structures Are Targeted, Why Are Courts Ignoring the Places of Worship Act?
After the order was passed, the survey findings were provided to four of the five petitions on compact discs (CD) enclosed in sealed packets. Before the CDs were handed over to them, the court reportedly made the petitioners submit written undertakings stating that they would not misuse the footage or make it public.
The four petitioners in question – Manju Vyas, Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu and Rekha Pathak – did so and received the sealed packets, according to Subhshnandan Chaturvedi, the counsel for one of the petitioners.
After the survey findings were handed over, however, the footage and pictures began making the rounds on social media and were even broadcast by some TV channels, according to the Hindustan Times report.
Abhaynath Yadav, the lawyer representing the mosque committee, alleged that one of the petitioners leaked the findings, calling it a “conspiracy” and an effort to “confuse the public”.
The lawyers representing the petitioners, however, claimed that all four of their packets are still sealed. Advocate Vishnu Jain, representing one the petitioners, said that they are ready to hand over the sealed packets to the court.
Supreme Court on earlier leaks
While hearing the matter on May 20, the Supreme Court had taken a dim view of earlier leaks surrounding the survey findings in the case.
Shortly after the survey findings were made available to the civil court in Varanasi, hearing the case at the time, on May 19, details about a ‘shivling’ being found during the survey had been leaked to the media.
The leak of information had also led to the then advocate commissioner in charge of the survey, Ajay Kumar Mishra, being sacked.
“We must tell the other side that the selective leaks must stop. It should be submitted to the court. Do not leak things to the press. You must present to the judge,” Justice Chandrachud had said.
Other developments from the May 30 hearing
During the May 20 hearing, the top court had made a number of other important decisions; it had transferred the matter from the civil court to the Varanasi district court, observing that a “senior and experienced judicial officer” should hear the case due to its “complexity and sensitivity; and had said that the Varanasi district judge would decide the matter of the mosque committee’s application for dismissal under Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Order 7 Rule 11 “on priority”.
Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is known as the ‘law of rejection of plaints’ and questions the maintainability of a plaint. If the plaint is deemed to be not maintainable by the court, the matter is thrown out without needing to be argued.
On May 30, Varanasi district judge Ajay Krishna Vishwesha had heard the mosque committee’s application under CPC O7 R11, which questioned the maintainability of the plaint, contending that the plaint is specifically barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
Also read: Understanding the Gyanvapi Mosque Case: What Does the Places of Worship Act Say?
The Places of Worship Act says that the nature of a religious place cannot be changed and must remain as it was as of August 15, 1947. As such, Section 4 (2) of the Act says that no suit which seeks to alter the nature of a religious place will be entertained by any court or authority in the country.
Before the district court, the petitioners – who had filed the suit seeking year-round access to a Hindu shrine purportedly located within the mosque complex and the right to worship in the complex – argued that the CPC O7 R11 application should not be heard in isolation and should, instead, be considered along with the survey commission’s report.
On the contrary, the mosque committee argued that the CPC O7 R11 application should be heard first and in isolation.
District judge Vishwesha posted the matter for further hearing on July 4, according to Live Law.
