Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Allahabad High Court refused to  stay Scientific Investigation in Gyan Vapi Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking judgment, the High Court upheld the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, while allowing the order for a scientific investigation in a contentious places of worship dispute , permissible extent of the High Court's powers and the utilization of scientific expertise in resolving disputes.

The court clarified that its power of judicial review under Article 227 is not akin to acting as an appellate body or reevaluating facts. It emphasized that interference is justified only in cases of grave injustice or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law. The judgment stated, "Interference warranted in cases of flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or when the order has resulted in grave injustice" (Para 10).

The court also highlighted the importance of scientific investigation in resolving complex disputes. It cited Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the purpose of scientific investigation is to secure evidence in disputes. The judgment noted, "Purpose is to secure evidence in dispute - Court may issue a commission for scientific investigation if necessary or expedient in the interest of justice" (Para 12).

Regarding the applicability of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the court clarified that the subject matter was not argued by the parties in the court below. The ruling read, "The Act's applicability not argued by parties in the Court below" (Para 9).

The court further underlined that the lower court's order could only be interfered with if it is found to be perverse or patently erroneous and contrary to the factual and legal position on record. The judgment emphasized, "No evidence of perversity or patent error in the lower court's findings" (Para 15).

The court ordered a scientific investigation by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to be conducted in a non-destructive manner. The ASI's expertise in scientific investigation was deemed essential to provide an impartial report. The judgment stated, "Investigation to be non-destructive and without damage to existing structures - ASI's expertise in scientific investigation" (Para 20).

Ultimately, the court upheld the order for a scientific investigation, aiming to aid the trial court in reaching a just decision. The commission's findings were expected to be beneficial to all parties involved. The judgment concluded, "Commission's findings to be beneficial to all parties and aid the trial court in reaching a just decision - No grounds for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution" (Para 21).

Date of Decision: 03 August 2023

C/M Anjuman Intezamia vs Smt. Rakhi Singh And 8 Others

Latest Legal News