LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi vs. Rakhi Singh and Others

Diary No. · 2023 INSC 702Decided 4 Aug 2023
Diary No. 31345 of 2023
Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud · J.B. Pardiwala · Manoj Misra

Background

In an ongoing civil suit where the plaintiffs sought a declaration of their right to worship deities allegedly present at the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, the trial court (District Judge) directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a scientific survey (including a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey, dating exercises, and study of the structure) to determine whether the mosque was built over a pre-existing Hindu temple, while excluding certain sealed areas. The Allahabad High Court upheld this order, subject to an affidavit from the ASI's Additional Director General assuring that the survey would be entirely non-destructive, with no drilling, cutting, or removal of any part of the existing structure. The mosque committee challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing the survey violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 and risked damaging the structure, drawing a parallel to an earlier, separately-stayed carbon-dating request in related litigation.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that the trial judge's power under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code to commission a scientific investigation to assist the court in a suit was validly exercised and not without jurisdiction, and that a Commissioner's report under this provision is not a final or binding finding. It only becomes evidence in the suit, subject to objections and cross-examination, and the trial court retains full control over how it is used. Given the ASI's explicit assurance (through its Solicitor General) that the survey would be non-invasive and would not involve excavation or any damage to the structure, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order, but reiterated and reinforced the specific safeguard that there must be no excavation at the site and that the entire process must use only non-invasive methodology. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly disposed of, with the ASI's report to be submitted to the trial court, which would then decide the suit's future course.

Lesson Learnt

A court-ordered scientific or forensic survey conducted to gather evidence in a pending civil suit is a procedural tool to assist the court, not a final adjudication of rights, and its use can be permitted with strict safeguards (like a ban on excavation or damage) even in a highly sensitive dispute, since any findings remain open to challenge and cross-examination at trial.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case