COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA MASAJID, VARANASI versus RAKHI SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 108 · Decided: 04-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 108 : 2023 INSC 702
108
CASE DETAILS
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA 
MASAJID, VARANASI
v.
RAKHI SINGH AND OTHERS
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.31345 of 2023)
AUGUST 04, 2023 
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue under consideration : Order of the High Court dismissing 
the appeal against an order of the District Judge directing an archeological 
survey of the area in which the Gyanvapi Mosque is situated.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Application u/s.75(c) and Or.26, 
r.10A of CPC allowed by the District Judge, directing ASI to undertake 
a scientiﬁ c survey of the property – High Court aﬃ  rmed the said order 
subject to certain observations made and aﬃ  davit ﬁ led by the ASI – 
Propriety of:
Held : The High Court had clariﬁ ed that while it was aﬃ  rming 
the order dated 21.07.2023 of the District Judge, it was subject to the 
observations of the High Court and the contents of the aﬃ  davit which was 
ﬁ led on behalf of ASI – Before the High Court, ASI had clariﬁ ed on aﬃ  davit 
that it was neither carrying out any excavation nor would the survey involve 
any destruction of the property – It was apparent from the directions of the 
District Judge that there would be excavation at the site – However, the 
High Court had circumscribed the nature of the order passed by the District 
Judge – High Court permitted the proposed survey since the Department 
of Archeology had expressly stated that no damage would be caused to the 
property in question – Thus, the direction of the High Court is reiterated that 
there shall be no excavation at the site or any destruction of the structure – In 
addition, it is directed that the entire process to be conducted by any non-
invasive methodology that may be adopted by the ASI. [Paras 9, 16 and 17]
109
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA MASAJID, 
VARANASI v. RAKHI SINGH 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXVI, r.10A – Exercise of 
discretion by the District Judge:
Held : The District Judge while acting as a trial Judge in the suit 
exercised discretion under Order XXVI Rule 10A to direct a scientiﬁ c 
investigation by the ASI – The order of the Trial Judge under Order XXVI 
Rule 10A cannot prima facie be construed to be without jurisdiction – 
The High Court also had found no reason to interfere – However, certain 
safeguards were introduced by the High Court. [Para 15]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
M Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs Mahant 
Suresh Das and Others (2020) 1 SCC 1 : [2019] 18 SCR 1; Committee of 
Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi vs Rakhi Singh and 
Others SLP (C) No 11351 of 2023; Mohd Aslam Alias Bhure vs Union of 
India and Others (1994) 2 SCC 48 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
Petition (Civil) Diary No.31345 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2023 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in MUA227 No.7955 of 2023.
Appearances:
Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Nizam Pasha, Ms. 
Rashmi Singh, Ibad Mushtaq, Ms. Akanksha Rai, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, AAG, Mrs. Madhavi 
Divan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ruchira Goel, Siddharth Thakur, Shantanu Singh, 
Ravi Sehgal, Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Sharanya Sinha, Ms. Keerti Jaya, 
Barun Kumar Sinha, Anantha Narayana M.G., Mrs. Pratibha Sinha, Rakesh 
Mudgal, Mrs. Beby Devi Bonia, Tarun Gulia, Prabhsimar Singh, Hari 
Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Parth Yadav, Ms. Mani Munjal, Advs. 
for the Respondents.
110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. The proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution have been 
initiated to challenge an order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 
dated 3 August 2023. The High Court dismissed the appeal against an order 
of the District Judge directing an archeological survey of the area in which 
the Gyanvapi Mosque [Settlement Plot No. 9130] is situated. 
2. The respondent-plaintiﬀ s ﬁ led a suit (Civil Suit No. 18 of 2022) 
seeking a declaration that they were entitled to perform rituals of deities 
which are allegedly present within the premises of the Gyanvapi mosque. 
The respondents also ﬁ led an application under Section 75 and Order XXVI 
Rules 9 and 10 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.