Introduction

The Supreme Court of India's recent judgment in Committee Of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh And Others (2023 INSC 702) has established significant precedents regarding the conduct of archaeological surveys in disputed religious sites. The case revolves around the contention over the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, where the respondent-plaintiffs sought permission to perform rituals they claim are tied to deities allegedly present within the mosque premises. The petitioner-defendants challenged these claims, invoking the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibits altering the religious character of places of worship. The crux of the legal battle was whether an archaeological survey could be conducted under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) without infringing upon the protections offered by the aforementioned Act.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, upheld the High Court's decision, which had affirmed the District Judge's order directing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to undertake a scientific survey of the disputed site. The Court emphasized that such surveys, when conducted under the stringent guidelines of Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC, do not contravene the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The judgment clarified that non-invasive methodologies, as directed in the orders, ensure that the structural integrity and religious sanctity of the site remain uncompromised.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references the landmark case of M Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Mahant Suresh Das (2020) 1 SCC 1, commonly known as the Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case. In this context, the Supreme Court elucidated the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, emphasizing the inviolability of religious sites. However, in the current case, the Court distinguished the nature of the survey ordered, ensuring it aligned with both legal provisions and the preservation of the site's sanctity.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court delved into the procedural nuances of Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC, which empowers courts to commission scientific investigations that are not feasible to conduct within the courtroom. The Court underscored that the ASI's mandate is to preserve and protect historical monuments, and the methodologies proposed—such as Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) surveys and GPS surveys—are non-destructive and aimed at ascertaining the historical and architectural aspects of the structure. By issuing specific directions to the ASI, the Court ensured that the survey would be conducted without any excavation or damage, thereby maintaining the balance between judicial inquiry and the sanctity of religious places.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in facilitating scientific investigations in legal disputes involving historical and religious sites. By validating the use of Order XXVI Rule 10A for such purposes, the Court has paved the way for more informed and evidence-based resolutions in similar cases. Additionally, the clear guidelines set forth regarding non-invasive survey methodologies ensure that future investigations respect both legal frameworks and religious sentiments.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC: This provision allows courts to appoint commissioners to conduct scientific investigations that cannot be conveniently carried out within the courtroom. It ensures that expert analysis can inform judicial decisions without infringing upon procedural norms.

Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991: A legislative act that prohibits altering the religious character of places of worship built before 15th August 1947. It restricts changing the place of worship for any other religion and imposes penalties for violations.

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey: A non-invasive method that uses radar pulses to image the subsurface, helping in understanding the structure without physical excavation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Committee Of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh And Others underscores the judiciary's commitment to balancing legal inquiry with the preservation of religious sanctity. By upholding the authority to conduct non-invasive archaeological surveys under Order XXVI Rule 10A, the Court has provided a clear pathway for addressing disputes involving historical and religious sites. This decision not only fortifies the procedural framework for future cases but also ensures that the integrity of places of worship remains protected while facilitating thorough and scientific judicial investigations.