Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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