Varanasi court gives 10 more days to ASI to submit Gyanvapi mosque survey report
Varanasi, Nov 30: The Varanasi district court on Thursday gave 10 more days to the Archaeological Survey of India to complete and submit a scientific survey report of the Gyanvapi mosque complex here.
Taking up the plea of the ASI seeking three additional weeks to submit the report, District Judge A K Vishvesh said he hoped that the ASI would not ask for more time, according to counsel for the Hindu side Madan Mohan Yadav.
The court fixed December 11 as the next date of hearing in the matter, Yadav said.
The court was hearing the ASI plea moved on Tuesday seeking three more weeks for submitting the report, saying it needed more time for the assimilation of information generated by different experts.
The ASI started the survey in the barricaded area of the Gyanvapi premises, excluding its sealed section, on August 4, following court orders to determine whether the 17th-century mosque was constructed over a pre-existing structure of a Hindu temple.
The Muslim side represented by lawyer Mohammad Ikhlaq strongly objected to the request for more time and argued that the ASI is seeking time to file the report again and again without any proper reason. He also argued that there should be some end to this process of taking time again and again to file the report.
The ASI be directed to file the report positively within the time granted by the court, Ikhlaq said.
In its order, the court said it expects that within the provided time, the ASI shall positively file the report and will not seek further time.
On Wednesday, taking up the plea of the ASI, District Judge Vishvesh asked a senior ASI official from Delhi to explain the need for more time, to which the ASI counsel said that officials in Varanasi had been handling the task and would apprise the court about it.
Earlier, the district court had asked the ASI to submit the survey report of the Gyanvapi complex by November 28.
In its application, the ASI had stated that its experts are working on various types of data collected by archaeologists, surveyors and other experts, etc., and assimilation of information generated by different experts and different tools is a difficult and slow process and it will take some more time to complete the report for final submission.
On November 2, the ASI told the court it had "completed" the survey but may take some more time to compile the report, along with the details of the equipment used in the survey work. The court then granted additional time till November 17 for submitting the document.
But its counsel again sought 15 more days due to the non-availability of the technical report and the district judge then asked it to submit its report by November 28.
The ASI is carrying out the scientific survey of the Gyanvapi premises, located next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple, to determine whether the 17th-century mosque was constructed over a pre-existing structure of a Hindu temple.
On October 5, the court granted four more weeks to the ASI and said the duration of the survey would not be extended beyond this. It had earlier given extensions on August 4 and September 6.
The survey had begun after the Allahabad High Court upheld the Varanasi district court order and ruled that the step was "necessary in the interest of justice" and would benefit both the Hindu and Muslim sides in the dispute.
During an earlier hearing, the mosque management committee had objected to the survey, alleging that the ASI was digging the basement and other places of the mosque complex without permission and accumulating debris on the western wall, posing a risk that the structure might collapse.
The ASI team was not authorised to survey the premises by removing debris or garbage, the mosque panel had said.
The Gyanvapi committee had also moved the Supreme Court against the high court's order. The apex court had, on August 4, refused to stay the high court's order on the ASI survey.
In its order, the bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, however, asked the ASI not to carry out any invasive act during the survey. This ruled out any excavations, which the Varanasi court had said could be conducted if necessary.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
