The Allahabad High Court has postponed the hearing for the Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi title dispute cases to December 1. Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker made this decision with the agreement of lawyers representing both parties.

The CJ Bench is currently addressing petitions submitted by the Masjid Committee, challenging the legitimacy of the suits filed by Hindu worshippers. These suits seek the right to worship in the Gyanvapi mosque and are contested based on the restrictions imposed by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.

On November 3, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in the decision made by Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker of the Allahabad High Court, which involved the transfer of the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Mosque dispute cases to his bench from another judge's bench.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra had rejected a Special Leave Petition submitted by Anjuman Intezemia Masazid Varanasi, which manages the Gyanvapi mosque. The petition challenged the transfer order issued by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.

On August 11, the Chief Justice issued an administrative order, withdrawing the Gyanvapi title dispute cases from Justice Prakash Padia's bench. This decision was made in the interest of judicial propriety, judicial discipline, and transparency in case listings. Subsequently, the cases were reassigned to the bench of the Chief Justice.

This development occurred shortly after Justice Padia's bench, which had been handling the case since August 2021, completed the hearings and reserved the orders in the cases on July 25.

The reason for this decision was clarified in the Chief Justice's order dated August 28. It was explained that the decision was prompted by the failure to follow the proper procedure for listing the cases, the issuance of multiple orders for reserving judgment, and the relisting of cases before Justice Prakash Padia for hearings, even though he no longer had jurisdiction as per the master of the roster. These factors contributed to the withdrawal of the cases.

In his 12-page order, the Chief Justice explained that his administrative decision stemmed from a complaint made before him on July 27, 2023, by a counsel representing one of the parties involved in the proceedings. The complaint pointed out that the hearings in the dispute cases were taking place in violation of the legal procedure prescribed for case listings, as per the established rules of law.

Crucially, on August 28, when the cases were scheduled for a hearing before the CJ bench, the Masjid committee raised an objection. They contended that the cases should not have been withdrawn from Justice Prakash Padia's bench by the Chief Justice on the administrative side, and that they should not be heard anew.

Following this objection, the Masjid committee submitted a formal application requesting the disclosure of the identity of the applicant whose request led to the transfer of the cases to a different bench.

The court noted that any party is free to apply for an inspection of the records of the writ proceedings to determine the identity of the applicant who filed the relevant application.

The Court further stated that the application in question had a limited purpose, which was to draw attention to the procedural irregularities within the proceedings. As a result, these irregularities were brought to the Chief Justice's notice on the administrative side, leading to the enforcement of mandatory procedures for the hearing of writ cases in accordance with the Court's rules. Given this context, the Court rejected Anjuman Masjid's request and scheduled the cases for a hearing on October 4.