List of Current Affairs

Why in News?

The Supreme Court has directed that order passed by the Varanasi District Court on 21st July 2023 for the ASI survey of the mosque should not be enforced till 26th July 2023 in the matter of Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi V. Rakhi Singh & Ors.

Background

• The Varanasi District Court directed the Director of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a scientific survey of the Gyanvapi mosque premises except for the area that was sealed earlier (wuzukhana) to find out if the same has been built over a pre-existing structure of a Hindu temple in the matter of Rakhi Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
• The matter pertained to the Varanasi District Court's decision to allow an application filed by worshippers seeking a scientific survey of the entire Gyanvapi mosque premises (except for Wuzukhana) by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to find out as to whether the Mosque had been constructed over a pre-existing structure of the Hindu temple was moved by the Committee of Management, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi.

Court’s Observations

• A bench comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the order of halting the ASI survey after hearing an urgent mentioning made by the Gyanvapi Mosque committee.
• The court further stated that the petitioners are at liberty to move the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to challenge the order of the District Judge, Varanasi.

Gyanvapi Mosque Dispute

• It is believed that the Gyanvapi Mosque was built in 1669 by the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb by demolishing the ancient Vishweshwar temple (devoted to the Hindu deity Lord Shiva built by Todar Mal).
• The case of Gyanvapi mosque has been in dispute since 1991, when three persons, including Pandit Somnath Vyas, a descendant of the priests of the Kashi Vishwanath temple, filed a suit in the court of the civil judge of Varanasi claiming that Aurangzeb had demolished the temple of Lord Vishweshwar.
• In 2021, in the same court in Varanasi, a petition was filed demanding to worship in the temple of Shringar-Gauri.
• The court had asked the commission appointed in this matter to give the survey report by videographing the idol of Shringar Gauri and the Gyanvapi complex.
• There has been a controversy over the survey and videography of this basement.
• Under Section 3 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, it is prohibited to convert a place of worship, even its clause, into a place of worship of a different religious denomination or a different class of the same religious denomination.
• Several petitions pertaining to the matter of Gyanvapi Mosque were pending and all have been ordered to have a combined hearing under Order 4A of CPC (U.P. Act 57 of 1976) on previous occasion.
• The Allahabad High Court has previously directed the ASI to conduct a scientific survey (using modern techniques) of the 'Shiva Linga' that has purportedly been found inside the Gyanvapi Mosque premises in Varanasi to ascertain its age.

Legal Provisions

Constitution of India, 1950

Article 227 - Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court

(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may— (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:

Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed, or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.

(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court power of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section 115 – Revision

(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears:

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.

Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.

(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.

(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court.

Explanation —In this section, the expression “any case which has been decided” includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding.

Why in News?

• A Single judge bench of Delhi High Court affirmed citizen’s right to hold a passport by stating that “Every citizen has a legal right to hold a passport and the right can be taken away only in accordance with law”.
• Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that the authorities can refuse to renew/cancel a passport only on grounds prescribed in law.
• In this matter of Nishant Singhal v. Union of India & Ors. the appellant filed appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Background

• When the appellant was a minor, his parents got him issued a passport with his Date of Birth shown as 16.01.2003 on the basis of the initial birth certificate.
• Later, they got his date of birth changed to 16.07.2003 by issuing him a new birth certificate under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
• The court referred to the Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Union Ministry of External Affairs on November 26, 2015.
  • The OM laid down the procedure for change or correction of dates of birth entries in a passport of an applicant already held by him or her.
• Appellant’s request for renewal of passport was denied only considering the fact that a passport was issued to him with Date of Birth as 16.01.2003 on the basis of Birth Certificate dated 11.02.2003 and that it was renewed twice on the basis of the same certificate.
• The court said that the reason of respondent that the earlier passport could have been misused is on mere possibility and on no valid grounds.
• The court further added during the hearing that the Petitioner has submitted all the relevant documents and has given his correct date of birth.
• And the mistake made by the parents of the Petitioner in giving the wrong date of birth cannot be put against the Petitioner.

Court’s Observations

The court made observations mentioned below:

1. The Passport Authority cannot make a rowing enquiry on its own and also is not competent to decide the veracity of Date of Birth.
2. Every citizen has a legal right to hold a passport.
3. The authorities are bound to follow the procedure prescribed under law.
4. An application for renewal of the passport of an individual cannot be denied only on the basis of apprehension that the earlier passports would have been misused.

Writs

• Writs are constitutional remedies designed to look after the violation of fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India, 1950.
• The primary objectives of writs are to prevent the state from misusing its power and to safeguard the rights of citizens.
• It can be issued by the Supreme Court under Article 32 and under 226 by the High Court.
• Writs under Article 32 are remedies yet a fundamental right in itself.
• There are five types of writs namely Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto, and Prohibition.

Article 226

• Article 226 is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which puts power in the hand of the High Court to issue the writs.
• It can be issued against any person or authority, including the government.
• Unlike Article 32, Article 226 is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right.
• Article 32 can be suspended if the during an emergency, however, Article 226 cannot be suspended even during an emergency.
• Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”.
• In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India (1984), it was held that Article 226 has a much broader scope than Article 32 as Article 226 can be issued to safeguard legal rights as well.
• In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), it was held that the writ under Article 226 can also be issued for the enforcement of public responsibilities by public authorities.

Power to Cancel Entry in the Register of Births and Deaths

• The power is conferred by Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
• The Registrar under Section 15 of the Act can correct the error or cancel the entry if any entry is found
  • Erroneous in form or substance
  • or has been fraudulently or improperly made
• He has power to correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry.
• He further has to mandatorily sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation.

Legal Provision

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Power of High Courts to issue certain writs -

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32.