Ordered by High Court, stalled by Supreme Court

The Gyanvapi excavation, ordered by the High Court, has become a contentious issue that has put the spotlight on the Supreme Court’s priorities. The ongoing Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey at the disputed Gyanvapi Mosque structure in Varanasi has been the subject of intense legal battles. However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision to halt the survey until 26th July raises questions about its handling of the matter.

Join us as we critically examine the Supreme Court’s current stance on the Gyanvapi excavation and the need for a more balanced approach to pressing issues.

Stay on ASI Survey until July 26!

The Supreme Court’s decision to halt the ASI survey at the Gyanvapi Mosque structure seems puzzling, given the importance of resolving such long-standing disputes. The issue involves the original Kashi Vishwanath temple, making it a sensitive matter for both Hindus and Muslims. The Gyanvapi Mosque itself stands as a symbol of historical and religious significance, warranting a thorough investigation to ascertain its true origins.

[BREAKING] Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath case: Supreme Court stays ASI survey till July 26, asks Muslim party to move High Court

report by @DebayonRoy #GyanvapiMosque #SupremeCourtofIndia https://t.co/lYDIL2YaUI

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) July 24, 2023

The recent granting of instant bail to Teesta Seetalvad and the subsequent halt on the Gyanvapi excavation raises concerns about the Supreme Court’s priorities. It appears that certain cases are being expedited while others of equal or greater significance are not receiving the same level of attention. This selective approach by the current bench erodes public trust in the judiciary’s ability to uphold the principle of justice impartially.

Also read: Liberals and Islamists cry like dying goats over Gyanvapi Shivling discovery

The Gyanvapi Masjid Committee approached the Supreme Court after the Varanasi District Court ordered the ASI survey. When questioned about not approaching the High Court first, the petitioner’s counsel cited the High Court’s refusal to defer the survey. This lack of coordination between different courts adds confusion to the legal process and further delays the resolution of the dispute.

Super Priorities of the Current Bench

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the respondents, assured the Supreme Court that the ASI survey would not cause damage to the disputed structure. The survey was designed to be non-penetrative and used methods like Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) to study the site. Despite these assurances, the incumbent Chief Justice of India decided to pass a stay order, effectively suspending the survey until 26th July. This move reflects a lack of trust in the experts and the ASI’s professionalism.

Only a few months ago, the Allahabad High Court approved the official carbon dating survey of the Shivalingam in the Gyanvapi complex after consulting various archaeological officers from the ASI. The contrast between the High Court’s decision and the Supreme Court’s actions further highlights the lack of uniformity in dealing with sensitive cases, leaving room for criticism and speculation.

Selective Criticism

It is disheartening to witness the Supreme Court’s silence on pressing issues such as the widespread vandalism in Bengal before and after the Panchayat elections. While an independent judiciary is vital for a functioning democracy, its silence on certain matters and active intervention in others raises eyebrows. A fair and balanced approach is essential to maintain public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality.

Also read: Gyanvapi thieves are the stupidest morons in the history of mankind

The Gyanvapi excavation issue has become a testing ground for the Supreme Court’s ability to handle sensitive matters with fairness and objectivity. However, the recent decision to halt the ASI survey raises doubts about the court’s priorities and decision-making process. A more cohesive and coordinated approach between different courts, along with a commitment to impartiality, is crucial to ensure that justice prevails and that the public’s faith in the judiciary is restored. It is high time for the Supreme Court to introspect and reevaluate its actions to uphold the principles of justice, transparency, and equality for all.