Chandrachud Under Fire: How Gyanvapi Ruling Sparks Controversy Over Religious Site Surveys

Chandrachud Under Fire: How Gyanvapi Ruling Sparks Controversy Over Religious Site Surveys

November 30, 2024 Catherine Williams - Chief Editor News

Title: Criticism of Ex-CJI Chandrachud Over Gyanvapi Survey Decision

Summary:
The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and Samajwadi Party (SP) MPs are criticizing former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. They argue his decision last year to allow an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey at Gyanvapi in Varanasi has led to more such petitions targeting religious sites.

Key Points:

  1. Target of Criticism:

    • Both the AIMPLB and SP MPs, including Zia Ur Rehman Barq and Mohibbullah Nadvi, blame Chandrachud for “opening the floodgates” for surveys of religious sites.

  2. Specifics of the Decision:

    • The Supreme Court ruled that the ASI could survey the Gyanvapi complex, despite concerns over the 1991 Places of Worship Act, which aims to maintain the status of religious sites as of August 15, 1947.

  3. AIMPLB’s Statement:

    • The AIMPLB claims the Chandrachud-led bench weakened the law by allowing the survey, leading to similar claims on other religious sites such as Shahi Eidgah in Mathura and Jama Masjid in Sambhal.

  4. Concerns Raised:

    • Critics, including Congress leader Imran Masood, question the purpose of such surveys given the protections under the 1991 Act, suggesting they may incite communal tensions.

  5. Support for Surveys:

    • Some, like Vishnu Shankar Jain, argue that the Places of Worship Act does not apply to ASI-protected sites, allowing for surveys to determine religious character.
  6. Recent Developments:
    • Following the Gyanvapi decision, the Allahabad High Court approved a survey of the Shahi Idgah Mosque. Additional disputes have arisen over other sites, including claims regarding the Ajmer Sharif dargah.

Conclusion:
The debate over the legality and implications of religious site surveys continues, with strong opinions on both sides regarding the balance between historical claims and existing laws.