Today, the Supreme Court has rejected a Special Leave Petition aimed at challenging the dismissal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that had sought the establishment of a commission led by a current or former Supreme Court or High Court Judge. This commission would have been tasked with investigating the nature of the structure located within the Gyanvapi campus to determine whether it is a Shivling, as asserted by the Hindu community, or a fountain, as claimed by the Muslim community.

The Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed the SLP.

The CJI today remarked, "Gyanvapi matter is a subject matter of a suit pending before a District Judge in Varanasi, what is this PIL business? That you suddenly filed a PIL... It's a subject matter of suit out of which some interim orders have come before us. We will dismiss it as there is nothing in this matter."4

"I am not aware of the facts. Could you please take it up after lunch as the senior counsel is currently appearing in another court?", said the junior counsel.

However, the Bench, refusing to grant a passover, dismissed the Special Leave Petition based on merits. "We are aware of the facts as we burn the midnight oil," remarked the Chief Justice.

The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was initiated to contest the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which had declined to consider a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). This PIL had requested the establishment of a committee or commission, headed by a judge from either the High Court or the Supreme Court, whether actively serving or retired. The primary purpose of this committee was to investigate the nature of the structure situated within the Gyanvapi campus.

The PIL also sought appropriate actions to be taken based on the findings of this investigation. If the structure was confirmed to be a Shiva Lingam, the request was to allow devotees to worship it. Conversely, if it was determined to be a fountain, the objective was to restore its functionality.

Cause Title: Sudhir Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.