[ad_1]
PRAYAGRAJ: Judicial proceedings in the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi mosque dispute saw a curious turn in August this year when Pritinker Diwaker, Allahabad high court‘s the then chief justice, transferred the cases related to it to his bench from the bench of Justice Prakash Padia.
An administrative order highlighted concerns about the non-observance of proper procedures in listing the cases and the successive reservation of judgments.It emphasised that Justice Padia no longer had jurisdiction yet continued to hear the cases, leading to the chief justice’s decision to withdraw them.
In a 12-page order, Chief Justice Diwaker explained that his decision stemmed from a complaint by a counsel involved in the proceedings, alleging that the hearing was not following the prescribed rules.
Anjuman Intezamia Masajid (AIM) and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board approached the SC, arguing that the decision was unwarranted and would cause delays. However, in November, SC declined to intervene, with a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud justifying the order by Chief Justice Diwaker due to Justice Padia’s failure to deliver the judgment, despite reserving it in 2021 and holding 75 hearings.
Following Chief Justice Diwaker’s retirement on November 21, the matter was assigned to Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal. After hearing all parties, he reserved judgment on December 8 and delivered the verdict on December 19.
An administrative order highlighted concerns about the non-observance of proper procedures in listing the cases and the successive reservation of judgments.It emphasised that Justice Padia no longer had jurisdiction yet continued to hear the cases, leading to the chief justice’s decision to withdraw them.
In a 12-page order, Chief Justice Diwaker explained that his decision stemmed from a complaint by a counsel involved in the proceedings, alleging that the hearing was not following the prescribed rules.
Anjuman Intezamia Masajid (AIM) and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board approached the SC, arguing that the decision was unwarranted and would cause delays. However, in November, SC declined to intervene, with a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud justifying the order by Chief Justice Diwaker due to Justice Padia’s failure to deliver the judgment, despite reserving it in 2021 and holding 75 hearings.
Following Chief Justice Diwaker’s retirement on November 21, the matter was assigned to Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal. After hearing all parties, he reserved judgment on December 8 and delivered the verdict on December 19.
#Rules #case #judge #flouting #rules #India #News
