In the months prior to the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, a violent mobilisation led by men who were to rise to constitutional posts (Atal Bihari Vajpayee and LK Advani), the Indian Parliament passed the Places of Worship Act, 1991. This law was meant to ensure that no place of worship of any religious dispensation was ever made subject to such an ignominious mobilization, again. On the radar of the supremacist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal have been dozens of mosques and shrines the most prominent being the Gyan Vapi Mosque at Kashi (Varanasi) and the Shahi Idgah Mosque at Mathura. “Ayodhya sirf Jhanki hai, Kashi Mathura Baki Hai” (Ayodhya is but a glimse, Kashi, Mathura yet to be done) is the slogan that rang on Indian streets where the mob ruled in the early 1990s.

In November 1993, then again 1994-95 and 1997, petitioner Mohammed Aslam alias Bhure who was an active litigant in the Babri Masjid case petitioned the Supreme Court of India expressing concern and anxiety praying for express ideas to protect the Gyan Vapi Mosque and the Shahi Idgah one too.

Three separate benches of the Supreme Court of India made it explicitly clear that the Places of Worship must be protected and the law (PWA, 1991) strictly implemented.

Sabrangindia has accessed these orders and presents a timeline:

1994 Justices M.N. Venkatachaliah, Chief Justice, S Mohan and Dr AS Anand passed an Order in September of that year. (Mohamed Aslam Bhure had petitioned the Court in November 1993.)

Reiterating seven prayers listed by the petitioner in its Order, the Supreme Court makes specific observations on prayer (v) that asks for cases to be registered as per provisions of Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, against any person who violates the Act by causing damage or converting these places from their existing religion to the religion of other denominations.

The Observations of the Supreme Court are telling:

 “So far as prayer (v) is concerned, it is the statutory obligation of the State to enforce the provisions of the Act. It does not need reiteration that the duty is a fortiori in matters of such serious public concern. In view of the plain obligations of the State to enforce the law, any direction on the hypothetical possibility of violation, amounts to no more than recanting the provisions of the statute itself.” (Para 4)

Ironically, at the time of recording of the 1994 Order as the judgement itself documents, the District Magistrates of both Mathura and Varanasi and the Home Secretary to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh were present in the Supreme Court.

Noting this the Supreme Court observes,

 “Learned Attorney General (then Milon Banerjee) submitted that after the events of December 6, 1992, the Central and State Governments are keenly alive to the need for an appropriately heightened security environment respecting places of worship referred to, and that the Governments are straining every nerve and resource to ensure such safety. Learned Attorney General submitted that adequate security measures for safeguarding these places of worship have been enforced and in operation…..” (Para 6)

The matter does not end there. The judgement goes on to record:

    “Shri AK Ganguly (then Solicitor General), upon instructions from the District Magistrates and the Home Secretary submit that the prayers sought for by the petitioner are, indeed, the subject matter of deep, anxious and committed concern of the Government and all precautions and safety measures have been evolved and are in operation with respect to these places of worship. (Para 7)

Given the fact that, as the three judge bench of the Supreme Court observes, both the State and Central Governments are keenly alive to the problem and have taken adequate steps and these measures are already in operation, no further specific directions are passed by the Court. (Para 8)

The entire SC Order may be read below.

1995 Justices BN Kirpal, Chief Justice, SC Sen and two others passed an Order in August of that year. (Mohamed Aslam alias Bhure had petitioned the Court in 1994.)

Again, it was petitioner Mohammed Aslam alias Bhure who petitioned the court invoking the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

The Order of the Supreme Court observes, that,

“..the Petitioner has filed this petition to ensure protection of the Gyanvapi mosque at Kashi – Banaras and Shahi Idgah Mosque Mosque at Mathura, both in the State of U.P. In this behalf he has also invoked ‘the provisions of the Places of Worship ( Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which, says he, prohibits conversion of any place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different section or religious denomination and enjoins maintenance of the status of all religious places as on 15.8.’47. The expression ‘place of worship’ inter alia includes a mosque. Lastly, he contends that Article 49 casts a duty on the state to protect monuments and places or objects of artistic of historical interest.”

“The reliefs claimed the essentially in the nature of directions to be issued to the respondents which include the state of UP, it’s chief Minister as well as the Union of India and their officers and servants to take adequate precautionary measures to protect the two mosques from the threats posed by the office bearers, workers and volunteers of the VHP, Bajrang Dal and the BJP. Directions are also sought to ensure, that people in large numbers do not collect at the two sites. There is also a prayer for the appointment of Union of India as a Receiver of these places.

“While we appreciate the concern and anxiety of the petitioner we see no reason to believe that the Central Government and the State Governments are remiss about performing their statutory and constitutional obligations referred to by the petitioner. It is their duty to take all such measures as are necessary including the restrictions on the number of people visiting the aforesaid place or places of worship to protect the said two places from possible and apprehended assaults. The two Governments, we are sure, are mindful of their obligations and we have no reason to doubt that they will be found wanting in the performance of their constitutional and statutory duties of protecting those places: Good governance demands that of them and it is also essential for the maintenance of law and order, peace and tranquility.”

A copy of this Order of the Supreme Court reiterating its faith in the State and Central government’s commitment to the rule of law was sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. as well as to the Secretary of U.P. as well as to the secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, by the Registrar General of this Court by FAX message for information and necessary action.

The third significant order of the Supreme Court in the matter, in the immediate wake of the demolition of the Babri Masjid was passed in 1997.

1997 Order of the Supreme Court, Justices AM Ahmadi, Chief Justice and Sujata V. Manohar. (Mohamed Aslam Bhure had petitioned the Court in November 1996.)

Again, at the outset, the Court observes that the matter relates to protection of the two places of worship, the Court notes the previous 1994 and 1995 Orders of the Supreme Court where specific directions to both to implement the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 and protect both the shrines (Mosques) were given, the Court proceeds to issue specific and clear directions.

The Supreme Court Order recounts that the Order passed by a Judge (of a Court subordinate to the Supreme Court!) “ensuring status quo” has caused some “difficulty” as by that the police seems to interpret the order to mean that barricades to protect the Mosques cannot be strengthened, enhanced or added to. The Court then, in 1997 proceeds to recount (the abovementioned pararaphs) from the Supreme Court Order of August 17, 1995 (B.N. Kirpal, SC Sen and two others) wherein the SC had made it abundantly clear that all necessary steps must be taken by the authorities “to protect the places of worship.”

Moreover, the Supreme Court specifically observes,

 “We do not think that the Government and police authorities would have any difficulty in understanding our previous order and to understand the same since we had in no uncertain terms permitted them to do everything that is necessary to protect the places of worship. No order of any subordinate court can be construed to run counter to this Court’s Order.” (Para 2)

Clearly with the very nature of the state undergoing a drastic change, some would argue in a worryingly anti-constitutional direction, today in the third decade of the 21^st century, close to 25 years later, the directives in these first orders of the Supreme Court related to the Gyan Vapi Mosque at Varanasi and Shahi Idgah Mosque at Mathura fall on deaf years. The hasty fashion and manner in which “prayers” were allowed inside the Gyan Vapi Mosque on the late evening of February 1, 2024, after an order of a subordinate question, begs these questions.

While these Orders in this sensitive case were not available on the Supreme Court, Sabrangindia has accessed them from law archives

1994 Justices M.N. Venkatachaliah, Chief Justice, S Mohan and Dr AS Anand passed an Order in September of that year may be read here

1995 Justices BN Kirpal, Chief Justice, SC Sen and two others passed an Order in August of that year may be read here

1997 Order of the Supreme Court, Justices AM Ahmadi, Chief Justice and Sujata V. Manohar may be read here

Related:

Puja in Gyanvapi: Mosque Committee announces bandh, Shahr Mufti Batin Nomani appeals for peace

The post When the Supreme Court directed protection for the Gyan Vapi Mosque, upheld the Places of Worship Act, 1991 (1994, 1995, 1997) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The aftermath of the Ayodhya judgment not only redefined the boundaries between history, religion, and legality but also paved the way for a series of challenges against other mosques, including the Gyanvapi Mosque. This article delves into these complex layers, dissecting the impact of court decisions on religious structures and the broader implications for a nation striving to achieve social harmony and sustainable growth.

The Ayodhya judgement: Legitimising illegal actions

The Supreme Court’s Ayodhya judgement was not a mere property dispute as embedded it was an act of religious and political violence: the destruction of the Babri Masjid. By holding in favour of the Hindus, the court ignored the basic principles of restitution that parties must be restored to their original positions, where possible.

The court could have ordered a status quo that prevailed before the demolition and then adjudicated the dispute, but it failed to do so. This (in)action by the court fueled the ‘temple reclamation’ movement and its consequences can still be felt today. The first stage of temple reclamation has become filing cases before the courts. Therefore, this article will look at the role of the courts in controversies of conversion of religious places.

It was expected that the judgment in the Babri Masjid would settle the law, and no new claims and disputes would arise in the future. However, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad has never backed down on its demand for the construction of Hindu temples in Varanasi, Mathura and several others.

Arundhati Roy writes in her book “Azadi- Freedom, Fascism Fiction” that ‘‘the VHP has refused to back down on its past statements that it will turn its attention to other mosques. Theirs can be an endless campaign- after all, everybody came from somewhere, and everything is built over something.’’

The Gyanvapi row

The Supreme Court is already hearing upon the Constitutionality of The Places of Worship [Special Provisions] Act, 1991, which was a law passed during the heat of the Babri Masjid dispute in 1991 that bans the conversion of any place of worship and preserving its character which was during the time of independence of India.

However, the Act, though being challenged before the Supreme Court, still exists and is in force. Yet, a petition was filed by five Hindu women in April 2022 before a Varanasi court claiming their right to worship since they believed there exists a Shivling under the Gyanvapi Mosque, which was constructed by Aurangzeb post destroying the temple. An archaeological survey of the Mosque in May 2022 was ordered, which led to the finding of an object resembling Shivling inside the mosque in the Wazukhana.

Consequently, an order was passed that Namaz would not be allowed in the Mosque; however, the Supreme Court ordered to restore Namaz and preserve the Wazukhana, and the court directed the District Judge, Varanasi to hear the matter.

The petition of those five women was challenged by the Masjid Intazamia on the grounds of its maintainability itself that The Places of Worship Act, 1991 is in force, and such a petition cannot be entertained that seeks to convert any religious place of worship as barred by Section 3 of the Act.

The District Judge [DJ] rejected this argument as he ruled that the law prevents the conversion of the place of worship, whereas, in this petition, the question is about the determination and ascertainment of the character of the place of worship, which is not barred by the Act.

Furthermore, the State of Uttar Pradesh had enacted a legislation, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983, which defines a temple under Sec. 4[9], and that means the Temple of Adi Vishweshwar, popularly known as Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple, situated in the City of Varanasi. Hence the Gyanvapi Mosque was held to be a temple as per this law.

While a frenzied mob can demolish the mosque, it would not have been possible to construct the temple without the help of court and state

The Supreme Court will also determine the Constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act, but for the time being, it is still valid; the law and its essence should be followed. The interpretation that the DJ has provided to the Section 3 is enough to open a floodgate of litigation before the courts of law for determining the nature of the place of worship.

Similar trajectory in the Mathura Case

The Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura is the subject of more than a dozen cases. The first of these cases was filed in the aftermath of the Ayodhya judgement. Based on the Court’s order in the Gyanvapi case, the petitioners requested a similar video survey of the mosque and the local court in Mathura agreed to hear the plea.

As seen from the above cases, the courts seem to be developing a jurisprudence on religious conversions that is not grounded in the laws.

Why are the courts acting in the manner in which they are acting?

A possible reson why courts seem to be sympathetic to the Hindu cause may be that they want to respect the matter of faith of the majority. They may also hold the opinion that even if they rule according to the law, like in the case of judgement in favour of temple entry of women of menstruating age in Sabrimala, ultimately the women had to bow down to the social pressure of tradition and only two women could enter in the middle of the night with government help.

But while a frenzied mob can demolish the mosque on the spur of the moment, it would not have been possible to construct the temple without the help of court and state.

Babri Masjid demolition imported terrorism to India

Babri Masjid demolition was soon followed by what was then called serial bomb blasts in Mumbai in early 1993 and which after the 2001 attack on twin towers in New York began to be called terrorists attacks. India witnessed many terrorist attacks after the Babri Masjid demolition including the most outrageous one in 2008 on Mumbai.

Radicalisation of Islam and Muslim youth was an outcome of Babri Masjid demolition and more such injustices are likely to create more reaction in the Muslim community. This is something that the judiciary must keep in mind when deciding the fate of Islamic historical religious structures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in the Babri Masjid Case stated that the non-retrogression principle should be followed as the courts of law will not undo the historical injustices by the previous rulers of the country or its parts thereof. It had stated:

‘‘This court cannot entertain claims that stem from the actions of the Mughal rulers against Hindu places of worship in a court of law today. For any person who seeks solace or recourse against the actions of any number of ancient rulers, the law is not the answer. Our history is replete with actions that have been judged to be morally incorrect and even today are liable to trigger vociferous ideological debate.’’

It is unfortunate that this part of the judgement is ignored by the lower courts which are encouraging litigations such as Gyanvapi and Mathura through favourable orders to the petitioners and thereby encouraging them to file more such cases that browbeat religious interests of the minority communities.

The courts are supposed to be the custodian of the Constitution. If they start giving in to the majority sentiment, the distinction between the judiciary and legislature will be lost. The legislature can still overrule the court like in the case of Shah Bano but the judiciary has to stand its ground.

*Vishnu Bandarupalli and Ayush Bajpai are students of law at NALSAR, Hyderabad; Sandeep Pandey, a Magsaysay award winning social activist-academic, is general secretary, Socialist Party (India)

Courtesy: Counterview

The post Gyanvapi, Mathura: Apex Court order not to entertain Mughal rulers’ ‘actions’ ignored appeared first on SabrangIndia.

By rejecting the mosque committee’s objection, have both the courts have effectively signalled a potential demise (or dilution of) the Places of Worship Act, 1991 (POW) whose constitutionality has been challenged by a lawyer associated with the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and is currently awaiting a decision from the apex court?

The judge on the bench which granted ASI the right to continue with its survey  (Allahabad HC) observed that the ASI survey is necessary in the interest of justice (1). This statement begs the question – justice for whom? The Gyanvapi Masjid’s case is contentious; the claim being put forward is related to both claims of encroached land and the rights of religious minorities.

The hearings on and around this law, which was enacted in September 1991as a consequence to the violent mobilisations around the demand for the demolition of the then 450-year old Babri Masjid at Ayodhya-Faizabad had been only opposed by the BJP at the time. Today, the law that Parliament regarded as necessary consequential to those developments and the accompanying shrill demands of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) campaign to re-open conflictual wounds and campaign for “re-claiming” thousands of others, is in serious danger of utter disregard and dilution. The PoW 1991 has, seemingly lost its significance, as the clamour for a temple at the Gyanvapi Mosque site by the Hindutva movement is likely to gain a shrill momentum once the ASI declares (a la ASI excavation below the Babri Mosque) the presence of ‘temple-like structures’ beneath the mosque.

Significantly, the famed 2019 Ayodhya judgment by the Supreme Court acknowledged the presence of “temple-like structures at the disputed site” but refrained from definitively establishing whether they were “demolished to build the Babri Masjid.” Moreover, this judgement widely critiqued otherwise, also held that the provisions of the PoW 1991 formed part and parcel of the Basic Structure Doctrine that was formally underlined in thee Keshavananda Bharati Case in 1978.

Arguments

During the court proceedings, senior advocate Madhavi Divan, representing the plaintiffs, emphasised that the ASI survey would provide expert evidence beneficial to all parties. The plaintiffs sought to “worship visible and invisible deities” within the Gyan Vaapi Masjid, claiming to have observed certain signs and symbols. Divan argued that a scientific study could logically reach a conclusion regarding the religious character of the site.

The court clarified that the survey was conducted under Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is not adversarial or prejudicial since it does not determine the rights of the parties and is subject to objections. Divan further contended that the Places of Worship Act does not prohibit determining the religious character of a place before August 15, 1947.

Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, assured that no excavation would be carried out during the survey, and the ASI would maintain the stand taken before the High Court. However, Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the mosque committee, raised concerns that the survey would re-open past wounds, contradicting the very spirit of the Places of Worship Act.

Justice Pardiwala suggested that the survey be conducted, given the assurance by Mehta that no invasive methods would be used, and the report be presented in a sealed cover. Ahmadi requested the report to be sealed, but the court did not explicitly address this issue in the formal order.

Ahmadi cited previous cases and the Places of Worship Act, arguing that the survey violates the Act’s provisions. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud mentioned that these issues would be considered during the arguments in the main matter, and also that the court would safeguard the structure.

Ahmadi raised concerns about potential frivolous suits requesting further such surveys. The Chief Justice clarified that the power of a civil court to pass interim orders is not barred, and the court will protect the structure while addressing maintainability concerns.

The Court allowed the ASI survey to proceed, considering it an interlocutory order appointing a commissioner. The court acknowledged the importance of addressing maintainability issues during the hearing of the main title suit and further assured respondents that Masjid would be protected during the process.

Background to the Gyanvapi Masjid case

The Gyanvapi masjid issue was first brought to the courts’ attention in 1991. A petition was filed with the Varanasi Civil Court by a group of priests, demanding the right for Hindu prayers to be allowed within the mosque’s premises. This demand was based on the claim that the Gyanvapi mosque had been constructed upon a Kashi Vishwanath Temple – and that, based on the original usage of the land, the premises ought to be returned to the Hindus. The proceedings were stayed by the Allahabad High Court in 1998, and the matter pretty much laid dormant for the next two decades – until the Ayodhya Dispute was resolved.

The landmark 2019 Ayodhya title dispute judgement marked the renewal of the Gyanvapi mosque case. In the same year, a fresh case was filed at a Varanasi Civil Court, seeking an archaeological survey to assess the mosque’s origins. In 2020, the original petitioners of the 1991 case approached the court to hear the original petition again. However, these proceedings were once again eventually stayed by the Allahabad High Court in September 2021.

In August 2021, a fresh petition was filed by 5 Hindu women at a Varanasi Civil Court seeking permission to worship Hindu deities within the masjid’s premises (2). Affiliated with the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, the women advanced the same claim as prior petitions did regarding the original usage of the land, stating that the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb had destroyed the temple and built a mosque on its ruins. The maintainability of this suit, i.e. the Shringar Gauri case, was challenged by the Anjuman Intezamia Mosque (AIM) Committee in April 2022 under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). However, once the Supreme Court redirected the matter to the Varanasi district court, the committee’s plea was dismissed in September 2022. District judge A.K. Vishvesha stated that the “plaintiffs will have right to prove their averments by cogent evidence (2)”, and ruled that Acts like the Waqf Act, 1995 and the Places of Worship Act, 1991 could not prevent the suit from being heard.

Encouraged by this decision, the petitioners filed a plea requesting the carbon dating of a structure (which they claimed to be a ‘shivling’) that had been found in the ablution tank of the mosque in May 2022 (3).  The claim that the structure was a sibling was advanced as proof that a Hindu temple once existed upon the masjid’s premises. However, the structure had already been dismissed as a part of a defunct fountain by the AIM Committee and a couple of Mahants associated with the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. In a positive development for the case, the Varanasi Court eventually rejected this plea on 14 October 2022, citing possible damage to the structure as a deterrent.

Over the course of the Shringar Gauri case, several pleas to be made party to the case were dismissed by the Varanasi Court. But just as quickly as these positive steps were taken, the Varanasi FTC undid them by dismissing a plea challenging the maintainability of a suit filed by the general secretary of the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh. This suit was a separate suit filed parallel to the original suit filed by the 5 Hindu women, and sought to ban the entry of Muslims into the mosque’s premises and obtain permission to pray to the shivling (4). The AIM Committee challenged the maintainability of the suit, but it was dismissed by the FTC on 17 November 2023.

To top it all off, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), i.e., the very institution making headlines as of late in this contentious case, informed the Allahabad High Court that while carbon-dating of the structure (claimed to be a shivling) could not be conducted, other modern techniques can be used to determine the age of the structure – thereby providing opportunity for the petitioners to raise unwarranted doubt as to its origins (5). This declaration was a result of the October 14^th plea rejection by the Varanasi Court. A plea revision was then filed before the Allahabad High Court, seeking directions to ASI to conduct a scientific probe through excavation and radar devices (5) – bringing us to the present.

Places of Worship Act, 1991

The legislation was introduced by the then Narasimha Rao government (the union minister for SB Chavan at the time and the Bill was introduce by then union finance minister, Manmohan Singh) and passionate interventions in Parliament at the time emphasised the need for such a law that protected the identity and ownership of religious places of worship as they were/are on August 15, 1947.

The Places of Worship Act, 1991 was passed against the growing trepidation regarding the Ayodhya dispute. On September 12, 1991, the Act was passed by the Rajya Sabha, preventing the conversion of any place of worship from the form it took on August 15, 1947. Conveniently enough, the Act states Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Majid in Ayodhya as an exception to the rule that no case can stand in any court regarding the conversion of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

The Act, while primarily questionable due to its contentious exception, was still passed with the intention of acting as a stabilising force amidst rising communal tensions. However, it has  seen a mixed implementation.In the Gyanvapi case, the AIM Committee’s plea challenging the maintainability of the Shringar Gauri case’s petition was dismissed by interpreting the Places of Worship Act, 1991 in a specific way so as to create a legal loophole. Varanasi District Court Judge A K Vishveshva pointed out that technically, the petitioners were not seeking a conversion of the Gyanvapi mosque into a Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Shiva, and were merely seeking the right to worship their religious deities upon the disputed land as a civil right guaranteed to them by law. Hence, the Places of Worship Act, 1991 could not serve as an obstacle in the way of the petition.

The Places of Worship Act, 1991 is itself being challenged on the grounds of Constitutional validity. Since the Act bars judicial review, a basic feature of the Indian Constitution, petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court of India this year declaring it to be absolutely arbitrary. They however remain to be fully heard, with proceedings having been adjourned to October 2023 to provide the Central Government with enough time to defend its position.

This law provided some reassurance to religious minorities and citizens who did not support Hindutva politics that the state would not permit the Sangh Parivar’s agenda of “demolishing mosques to restore temples to persist indefinitely,” justifying a falsified and perverted understanding of history and the past.

Hence, the recent decision of the SC allowing the ASI survey, questions of opening a Pandora’s box of controversies has arisen. The SC order endorsed the orders of the two other courts that had previously examined the matter: the Varanasi District Court and the Allahabad High Court.

This legal process has been ridden by contradictions and controversies, beginning with the initial direction in April 2021 from a lower local Varanasi city court to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a comprehensive survey. The matter was subsequently carried to the Allahabad High Court and then eventually reached the apex court through the appeals of the Mosque committee and others.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the survey was initially halted. During this time, the city court “ordered the videography of the inner precincts of the Gyanvapi Mosque.” When this decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, it permitted the videography but simultaneously transferred the case from the city court to the District Court, citing the social complexities involved.

The sequence of events in this legal process has been marked by a lack of consistency and clear direction, leading to further uncertainties surrounding the issue.

The unfolding of events in this case presents a Kafkaesque narrative or a perplexing whodunit script, lacking clear logic or consistency.

The district court’s order for the ASI survey seemed to overlook previous barriers, even though permission for the same survey had been declined on technical grounds the previous year, only to be allowed on July 21, 2023 by the same judge. The trajectory of this case is hence complex and often, contradictory.

In May of this year, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud acknowledged the delicate nature of such matters and the need for cautious handling while hearing a plea against the ASI survey order.

Recently, when the Mosque Committee approached the apex court seeking time to appeal the District Judge’s survey order, the Supreme Court granted a stay and directed the High Court to promptly admit and hear the committee’s petition. The court expressed concern that the Muslim side had not been given adequate time, and it noted that the ASI had started the survey in the early hours of the morning. Interestingly, a similar sequence was followed after the High Court’s approval of the survey in August 2023, but this time, the Supreme Court did not halt the process; instead, it only directed that the survey should be “non-invasive.”

As a consequence, the Supreme Court’s order permitting the ASI survey arguably opens the door for the Sangh Parivar to intensify their campaign for the ‘restoration of temples,’ which they claim were “demolished” by ‘foreign invaders’ centuries ago.

The saffron camp’s crusade is likely to expand beyond the Gyanvapi Mosque and Shahi Idgah in Varanasi and Mathura, respectively. Depending on the outcomes of various political events, especially national and state elections in the next couple of years, there is a possibility of adding new shrines to the ‘to-be-restored’ list. However, a more disheartening prospect looms as there is a clear chance of dramatic or even destructive developments concerning the Varanasi shrine prior to the parliamentary polls scheduled for March-May next year (2024).

These potential developments, following the ASI report’s submission and ominous ‘leaks’ like the videos of the inner precincts of the Gyanvapi Mosque, could lead to a disconsolate occurrence of the impending Lok Sabha elections being contested around the theme of ‘resurgent’ Hindus ‘reclaiming’ their past glory after centuries of ‘subjugation’ by ‘foreign’ rulers.

Following the contentious Ayodhya verdict, in which the Supreme Court awarded the property to Hindu parties for constructing a Ram temple while acknowledging the demolition of the mosque as an “egregious violation of the rule of law,” many law-abiding secular citizens of India had praised the judges for upholding the Places of Worship (PoW) Act as a beacon of hope.

The 1991 law was considered instrumental in resolving disputes, including those of Ayodhya, while excluding the Ayodhya conflict from its purview. The five-judge Ayodhya title suit bench, which included the current CJI Chandrachud, viewed the PoW Act as emblematic of the Indian Constitution’s basic structure. They emphasized that it was “intrinsically related to the obligations of a secular state” and a law that “reflected India’s commitment to the equality of all religions.”

Judicial view on Places of Worship act (POW)

According to the judges, the PoW Act served two purposes: firstly, it prohibited the conversion of any place of worship, thereby preserving the future character of public worship sites. Secondly, the law imposed a positive obligation to maintain the religious character of every place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

However, this faith in the PoW (places of worship act) Act was significantly eroded in May 2022 when the Supreme Court declared that ascertainment of religious character is not barred under Section 3 of the Act. This ruling came during the hearing on the  Gyan Vapi Mosque Committee’s appeal against the videography of the premises, casting doubt on the Act’s protective intent.

Questions have arisen around whether the process of ascertainment, as with the current survey, which goes beyond mere videography, could potentially (without necessary archaeological or historic evidence) reveal the existence of a temple-like structure beneath the Gyanvapi Mosque. If so, it raises concerns whether any court or state institution could prevent its demolition without risking widespread violence and police intervention.

The implications of the Supreme Court’s deadline of October 31, 2023 for the government to present its viewpoint on the 1991 law are significant. The possibility of the ASI findings being leaked to the media looms, potentially influencing political and legal proceedings.

Legal Provisions of Places of Worship Act 1991

Section 3: This bars the conversion, in full or part, of a place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination or even a different segment of the same religious denomination.

Section 4(1): It declares that the religious character of a place of worship “shall continue to be the same as it existed” on 15^th August 1947.

Section 4(2): It says any suit or legal proceeding with respect to the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship existing on 15^th August, 1947, pending before any court, shall abate and no fresh suit or legal proceedings shall be instituted.

The proviso to this subsection saves suits, appeals, and legal proceedings that are pending on the date of commencement of the Act if they pertain to the conversion of the religious character of a place of worship after the cut-off date.

Section 5: It stipulates that the Act shall not apply to the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, and to any suit, appeal, or proceeding relating to it.

Section 6 of the Act prescribes a punishment of a maximum of three years imprisonment along with a fine for contravening the provisions of the Act.

Exemption from places of worship act 1991

Any place of worship which is an “ancient and historical monument”, or an archaeological site covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. A suit that has been finally settled or disposed of.

Any dispute that has been settled by the parties or conversion of any place that took place by acquiescence before the Act commenced.

In 2007, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in Satinder Kumar And Ors. Vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 26 April, 2007  related to a Church in Shimla, said any structure that is more than 100 years old and satisfies the definition of ancient monument under the law, automatically becomes an ancient monument and there is no special declaration necessary. And once the place of worship is established as an “ancient monument”, it falls outside the ambit of the Places of Worship Act.

Similar cases across the country

Qutub Minar, Delhi

On December 9, 2020, a lawsuit was filed before a civil court in Delhi, alleging that the Qutub Complex, housing the 13^th-century Qutub Minar, originally comprised Hindu and Jain temples before being destroyed by Qutb-ud-din Aibak, who then erected the present structures.

The petitioners argued that Delhi was under Hindu rule until 1192 AD when Mohammed Ghori defeated Prithviraj Chauhan in the Battle of Tarain. However, the suit was dismissed by a Delhi court, stating that acknowledging historical wrongs should not disturb peace in the present.

Following the dismissal, the case was challenged, and on February 22, 2022, additional district judge Pooja Talwar agreed to hear a plea contesting the earlier decision. The case is ongoing.

On May 10, 2022, members of a Hindu group called the Mahakal Manav Seva demanded that the Qutub Minar be renamed Vishnu Stambh, claiming it was originally part of a tower constructed atop an ancient Ganesha temple.

Taj Mahal , Uttar Pradesh

On May 7, 2022, Rajneesh Singh, who claimed to be in charge of the BJP’s media outreach, filed a petition with the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, seeking the opening of more than 20 rooms within the 17^th-century Taj Mahal. Singh’s public-interest litigation (PIL) argued that numerous Hindu groups had asserted that the Taj Mahal was an ancient Shiva Temple known as the Tejo Mahalaya.

However, on May 12, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition. Justice D K Upadhyay expressed concern, stating, “Tomorrow you’ll come and ask us to go to the chambers of Hon’ble judges? Please, don’t make a mockery of the PIL system.” The court upheld the sanctity of the Taj Mahal, rejecting the claim that it was a Shiva Temple.

Shahi Masjid , Mathura

The 17^th-century Mathura Shahi Masjid and Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, have become contentious places of worship, with two cases currently pending before the Allahabad High Court and a local Mathura district court.

On November 12, 2020, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the Allahabad High Court, requesting that the Shahi Masjid, situated next to a Sri Krishna temple, be handed over to Hindus. Initially dismissed on January 19 of the following year due to the petitioner appearing in court without legal representation, the plea was later reinstated by the High Court on March 14, 2022. The PIL claims that the Shahi Masjid was constructed on the Krishna Janmasthan, believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna. The matter has been scheduled for July 2022.

Concurrently, a separate case is ongoing before the Mathura district court seeking the removal of the Shahi Idgah Masjid on the grounds that it was erected over the Krishna Janmabhoomi. The plaintiff, Sri Krishna Janmabhumi Mukti Aandolan Samiti, alleges that the mosque in question (Shahi Idgah) was built on 13.37 acres of land belonging to Thakur Keshav Dev Maharaj Katra.

Bhoj Shala complex , Dhār Madhya Pradesh

On May 11, 2022, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a notice to both the central and state governments in response to a petition that seeks to reclaim the 11^th-century Bhojshala complex, situated in the district of Dhar, for Hindus and prohibit Muslims from offering namaz there.

Located in Dhar, approximately 250 km east of the state capital Bhopal, the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula mosque has been a shrine claimed by both Hindus and Muslims.

In 2003, an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) notification allowed Muslims to offer namaz within the Bhojshala complex. However, the recent petition has raised concerns over the place of worship’s status, leading to legal proceedings and discussions on its rightful ownership and usage.

Consequences

The consequences of the High Court and Supreme Court rulings extend beyond the Gyanvapi Mosque. The existence of the Shahi Idgah in Mathura is also jeopardized, as similar cases which are moving towards resolution. Fears and concerns of the ultra right wing’s,  relentless ‘demolish-mosques-to-restore-temples’ campaign becoming perpetual seem to be coming true, with winning elections becoming the primary objective of the current regime, as demonstrated by recent events in Manipur and Haryana.

Order may be read here:

(The author is an intern with the organisation, cjp.org.in)

[i]  https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/the-places-of-worship-act-1

https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-permits-asi-survey-gyanvapi-mosque-premises

https://thefederal.com/opinion/gyanvapi-mosque-why-sc-ordered-asi-survey-will-open-the-floodgates/

https://scroll.in/article/992086/analysis-could-asi-survey-of-gyanvapi-mosque-lead-to-it-being-exempted-from-places-of-worship-act

https://article-14.com/post/gyanvapi-mosque-similar-litigation-illegal-under-a-31-year-old-law-yet-courts-keep-hearing-cases-628574e5b0b3f

The post The SC’s decision on ASI Survey of Gyanvapi: An analysis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Lucknow: Amid the row over discovery of a “Shivling” inside the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, a civil court in Mathura has ordered a survey of the Shahi Idgah Masjid and sought a report on the same by January 20, in one of the petitions related to the Shahi Idgah mosque-Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi temple dispute.

Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sonika Verma passed the order earlier this week on a civil suit filed by Hindu Sena president Vishnu Gupta and vice president Surjit Yadav. The suit was filed on December 8 this year, and sought possession of the site at which the mosque stands and the removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque.

The Mathura court has now directed the Court Amin (a term used to refer to a revenue department official) to visit the disputed premises and conduct a survey of the area. The court officers have been asked to submit a report with site plans and maps before the court by January 20, 2023 when the petition will be taken up next.

The Hindu Sena chief’s suit claimed that the mosque was allegedly built on the site where Lord Krishna was purportedly born and sought that the agreement between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and the Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee in 1968 be cancelled, calling it illegal.

The argument presented is that the temple trust did not have the power to act against the interest of the people belonging to the faith and against the interest of the deity.

This is one of over a dozen petitions pending in the civil courts of Mathura with regards to the Shahi Idgah-Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute.

The order comes in the backdrop of Varanasi courts deciding on more than occasion that the Hindu plaintiffs’ suit in the Gyanvapi dispute was maintainable.

Both the Gyanvapi mosque and the Shahi Idgah Mosque, fall under the purview of The Places of Worship Act, 1991, but now they are under litigation.

‘Blatant Violation’ of Act

Social activists, academicians and Left leaders NewsClick spoke with claimed that this was totally against the Places of Worship (special provisions Act) 1991.

Roop Rekha Verma, former Lucknow University vice-chancellor, who has been fighting for inequalities of caste, gender and religion on the streets, told NewsClick: “Persons like me, who wish to cherish a composite culture, plurality, peace and love in India are deeply disturbed by court rulings allowing surveys of the premises of mosques and temples in Varanasi and Mathura despite there being a law, the Places of Worship Act, enacted in 1991. This law debars raising controversies over a mosque or temple existing before 1947. The courts have disappointed us by interpreting the law in a very literal sense, damaging its real spirit. This opens up the pandora box of controversies which is dangerous to peace and progress of the country.”

The Mathura dispute involves ownership of 13.37 acres, which the petitioners claim belongs to Lord Shri Krishna Virajman and also challenged the validity of a 1968 compromise agreement between Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and the Trust Masjid Idgah. 

Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader and former MP, Subhashini Ali, believes the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is “fuelling” communal issues such as the row over the Gyanvapi- Shahi Idgah mosque with an eye on the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. 

“After Babri, these days, it looks like the BJP has taken up the agenda of Varanasi’s Gyanvapi mosque and now Shahi Idgah mosque… the reason they do not have anything to show ahead of 2024 Lok Sabha polls except the mandir-masjid issue. They have confidence that the way they used Ram Janmabhoomi as fodder to come to power, they can retain the same in upcoming elections,” she told NewsClick.

Meanwhile, the counsel for Shahi Masjid Idgah said they would file their objection on January 20 to the district court order on the submission of a survey report of Idgah. He alleged that the petitioners had “misled” the court and attained the order without proving the need and urgency for survey to be undertaken.

“The decision has been taken without issuing notice to us, which will not be accepted at all. We have not been served any summons in the case, thus we have not even appeared in the case and came to know about such an order for a survey of the mosque premises from other sources other than the court procedure,” Ahmed told NewsClick. “The courts have closed for the winter vacation. On opening of the court in the first week of January, we will file our objections against any survey as ordered by court,” he added.

The suit is one of the many pleas demanding the removal of the 17th century Shahi Idgah Masjid from the Katra Keshav Dev temple complex. The “compromise” between Sri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and Shahi Masjid Idgah made in 1968 was also challenged in the suit, according to lawyers.

Ramon Magsaysay award recipient and social activist Sandeep Pandey told NewsClick: “It is interesting that people associated with Hindutva ideology who are against redressal of caste discrimination by opposing caste-based reservation want the historical religious wrong undone by looking for signs of a temple in mosque after mosque. It is unfortunate that instead of addressing basic problems faced by common people like illiteracy, poverty, malnourishment, unemployment, inflation, a section of the population supported by the ruling Hindutva ideology wants to dig into unnecessary religious controversies with the objective of communal mobilisation. These regressive forces are taking the country backward and are doing long term harm to the progress of society.”

Some legal experts also believe that the district court’s judgement was not correct.

“When there is a law saying certain things have to be put to an end, its objectives have to be considered,” argued Lucknow-based advocate on record Maruf Hashmi.

“There has been uninterrupted offering of namaz in the Shahi Idgah premises. Anything done contrary to uninterrupted mosque activities amounts to changing the nature of the place of worship,” he told NewsClick.

MATHURA ‘TENSE’

Meanwhile, the communally sensitive Mathura city remains tense days after the Mathura court ordered a Gyanvapi Masjid-like survey of Shahi Idgah mosque. Following the announcement, security has been stepped up. Both Hindu and Muslim communities, especially business and secular minded people, said that the atmosphere of the country should not be spoiled over a temple or a mosque.

Mathura-based political observer Pervez Ahmad told NewsClick, “People from both the communities are upset with the order. They think it will not only be loss-making business for the city after security forces land in the city but also destroy the social fabric of the country further. Locals said that the ruling government is unnecessary digging up this issue to gain political mileage ahead of upcoming elections.”

Several citizens of Mathura have said they are united and have called for keeping calm and protecting the original bonhomie of the city.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post UP: After Gyanvapi, Mathura Court Orders Shahi Idgah Survey; ‘Violation’ of Places of Worship Act, Say Activists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) submitted before the Allahabad High Court that carbon dating of the purported ‘Shiva Ling’ at the GYanvapi mosque complex might damage it, reported LiveLaw. 

The court is hearing an appeal filed against the Varanasi Court order that rejected the plea for scientific investigation.

The ASI, has however, submitted that other modern techniques can be used to determine the age of the structure. The ASI also submitted that carbon dating cannot be conducted of non-living or inanimate objects as they do not contain fossils/carbon.

The ASI failed to file its affidavit and sought 3 months’ time to submit the DIrector General’s opinion about safe evaluation of the structure by using other scientific methods. The bench of Justice JJ Munir however, refused to grant the time and has posted the matter for further hearing on November 30.

On October 14, the Varanasi Court rejected the plea for scientific investigation of the purported ‘shivling’ which was allegedly found during survey of Gyanvapi mosque. A revision plea was filed before Allahabad High Court seeking directions to ASI to conduct scientific probe of the ‘shivling’ through carbon dating, ground penetrating radar and excavation. 

On April 26, the Varanasi court ordered a videographic survey of the Gyanvapi complex. On May 6, the inspection began amidst heavy security and on May 16, the court was informed by the Hindu  side that a shivling was found inside a pond in the mosque complex. On the same day, the court directed the District Magistrate to seal the place where shivling has been recovered. This order came a day before the Supreme Court was set to hear the Masjid Committee’s plea challenging the Allahabad High Court order which had dismissed their appeal against this survey.

Related:

Gyanvapi dispute: Varanasi FTC dismisses plea challenging maintainability of suit filed by Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh

Gyanvapi case: SC extends interim order; ‘Shivling’ to remain protected without obstructing right to offer namaz

Gyanvapi case: AIM finally gets copy of survey report

The post Gyanvapi mosque: Cannot conduct carbon dating of ‘Shivling’, says ASI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Fast Track court in Varanasi has dismissed the application filed by Anjuman Masjid Committee challenging the maintainability of suit filed by General Secretary of Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh seeking a ban on the entry of Muslims into the Gyanvapi complex and permission to offer prayers at the “Shivling”.

Judge Mahendra Kumar Pandey of Fastrack Court, Varanasi dismissed the plea filed under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC (Civil Procedure Code) and has now posted the suit for hearing on December 2, 2022.

On May 24, plaintiff Kiran Singh, who is general secretary of the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, had filed the suit in the Varanasi district court seeking a ban on the entry of Muslims into the Gyanvapi complex, handing over the complex to the Sanatan Sangh and permission to offer prayers at the “Shivling”.

On May 25, district court Judge A K Vishvesh had ordered the transfer of the suit to a fast track court.

Varanasi district magistrate, police commissioner, Anjuman Intezamia Committee that is managing the Gyanvapi mosque, and Vishwanath Temple Trust were made respondents in the suit.

Owing to the multiplicity of suits and applications and pleas being filed at various for a, relating to the dispute over Gyanvapi mosque, one is bound to be confused, which suit is being heard and where. To avoid any ambiguity, we clarify that this suit is not connected to, but running parallel to the suit filed by 5 Hindu women seeking rights to pray in the Gyanvapi mosque premises.

A Similar suit

The suit filed by the 5 Hindu women was also challenged for its maintainability by the Masjid Committee and the same was dismissed by a Varanasi District Court Judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha on September 12. It is also known as the Shringar Gauri suit as the women plaintiffs seek access to what they say was the Maa Shringar Gauri shrine located behind the western wall of the mosque complex.

On April 26, the Varanasi court ordered a videographic survey of the Gyanvapi complex. The Masjid Committee challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed on April 21. On May 6, the inspection began amidst heavy security and on May 16, the court was informed by the Hindu  side that a shivling was found inside a pond in the mosque complex. On the same day, the court directed the District Magistrate to seal the place where shivling has been recovered. This order a day before the Supreme Court was set to hear the Masjid Committee’s plea challenging the Allahabad High Court order which had dismissed their appeal against this survey.

On October 14, the Varanasi Court rejected the plea for scientific investigation of the purported ‘shivling’ which was allegedly found during survey of Gyanvapi mosque. A revision plea was filed before Allahabad High Court seeking directions to ASI to conduct scientific probe of the ‘shivling’ through carbon dating, ground penetrating radar and excavation. The court adjourned the hearing to November 28 and extended interim stay on the lower court’s order for ASI survey until November 30.

On November 11, the apex court extended the interim protection granted by it in May which stated that the ‘Shivling’ will remain protected without obstructing right to offer namaz at Gyanvapi.

Related:

Gyanvapi case: SC extends interim order; ‘Shivling’ to remain protected without obstructing right to offer namaz

Gyanvapi case: AIM finally gets copy of survey report

Gyanvapi case: Varanasi court rejects plea to conduct carbon dating test of “shivling”

Gyanvapi case: Rift widens between Shringar Gauri plaintiffs

Gyanvapi Case: Copy-Paste Pattern a la Babri Case – Not Just Legally But Politically, Too?

The post Gyanvapi dispute: Varanasi FTC dismisses plea challenging maintainability of suit filed by Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud while hearing the plea filed by Masjid Committee of Gyanvapi mosque challenging survey of the mosque ordered by the Varanasi Court, extended the interim protection granted by it May.

On May 20, the court had ordered that the interim order will operate for 8 weeks after the Varanasi Court makes a decision on the plea of the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM) Committee challenging the maintainability of the Hindu worshipper’s suit. The Varanasi Court dismissed this plea on September 12 and 8 weeks from that date would expire on November 12 and hence this urgent listing was sought. The Masjid Committee had filed a plea questioning the maintainability of the suit filed by 5 Hindu women seeking right to worship deities in the mosque premises throughout the year.

Background

On April 26, a lower court (civil judge-senior division) that was earlier hearing a plea by a group of women seeking permission for daily worship of idols of Hindu deities on the mosque’s outer walls had ordered a videographic survey of the Gyanvapi complex and the Hindu side had claimed a “Shivling” was found during the exercise.

However, the Muslim side has maintained that the object was part of the water fountain mechanism at the “wazookhana” reservoir where devotees carry out ablutions before offering ‘namaz’.

The Supreme Court had transferred the case from a civil judge (senior division) to a district judge on May 20, saying looking at the “complexities” and “sensitivity” of the issue, it is better if a senior judicial officer with an experience of over 25-30 years handles the case.

On May 24, plaintiff Kiran Singh, who is general secretary of the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, had filed the suit in the Varanasi district court seeking a ban on the entry of Muslims into the Gyanvapi complex, handing over the complex to the Sanatan Sangh and permission to offer prayers at the “Shivling”.

On May 25, district court Judge A K Vishvesh had ordered the transfer of the suit to a fast track court. The Fast track court has postponed the judgement in this case and will reportedly pronounce it on November 14. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the court had on October 27 reserved its order on the suit for November 8, which was adjourned to November 14.

On September 12, Varanasi District Judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha dismissed the plea filed by AIM challenging the maintainability of the suit filed by Hindu petitioners who had demanded that they be allowed to offer prayers at the temple of deity Shringar Gauri located on the mosque premises. The court of district judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha held that the suit was neither barred by the Places of Worship Act, nor the Waqf Act, and was thus maintainable under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. 

On October 14, Varanasi District Judge Ajay Krishna Vishwesha rejected the plea to conduct carbon dating of a structure discovered in the Wazu Khana (ablution tank) of the Gyanvapi mosque citing the possibility of causing damage to the structure as the reason for rejecting the plea. After AIM’s plea challenging the maintainability of the main Shringar Gauri suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was dismissed by the court, the petitioners moved an application requesting carbon dating and other scientific tests be conducted on the “shivling” to determine its age and authenticity.

Case in Allahabad High Court

Before the Allahabad High Court is a plea challenging the suit filed before the Varanasi Court for restoration of land on which Gyanvapi mosque is situated. The court adjourned the hearing to November 28 and extended interim stay on the lower court’s order for ASI survey until November 30,, reported LiveLaw.

Related:

Gyanvapi case: Court dismisses mosque committee’s plea challenging maintainability of suit

Gyanvapi case: Varanasi court rejects plea to conduct carbon dating test of “shivling”

Varanasi: Gyanvapi hearing over ‘Shivling’ worship deferred to Nov 14

The post Gyanvapi case: SC extends interim order; ‘Shivling’ to remain protected without obstructing right to offer namaz appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Varanasi: A fast track court on Tuesday postponed till November 14 judgement on a plea seeking permission to allow worship of a “Shivling” claimed to have been found in the Gyanvapi mosque complex here.

As the civil judge (senior division) of the court Mahendra Pandey is on leave, the court posted the matter for November 14, Assistant District government counsel Sulabh Prakash said.

After hearing arguments of both the sides, the court had on October 27 reserved its order on the suit for November 8.

On May 24, plaintiff Kiran Singh, who is general secretary of the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, had filed the suit in the Varanasi district court seeking a ban on the entry of Muslims into the Gyanvapi complex, handing over the complex to the Sanatan Sangh and permission to offer prayers at the “Shivling”.

On May 25, district court Judge A K Vishvesh had ordered the transfer of the suit to a fast track court.

Varanasi district magistrate, police commissioner, Anjuman Intezamia Committee that is managing the Gyanvapi mosque, and Vishwanath Temple Trust were made respondents in the suit.

On April 26, a lower court (civil judge-senior division) that was earlier hearing a plea by a group of women seeking permission for daily worship of idols of Hindu deities on the mosque’s outer walls had ordered a videographic survey of the Gyanvapi complex and the Hindu side had claimed a “Shivling” was found during the exercise.

However, the Muslim side has maintained that the object was part of the water fountain mechanism at the “wazookhana” reservoir where devotees carry out ablutions before offering ‘namaz’.

The Supreme Court had transferred the case from a civil judge (senior division) to a district judge on May 20, saying looking at the “complexities” and “sensitivity” of the issue, it is better if a senior judicial officer with an experience of over 25-30 years handles the case.

District Judge A K Vishwesh is hearing another case demanding a survey of closed underground places in Gyanvapi premises. This case will be heard on November 11.

Courtesy: The Daily Sisat

The post Varanasi: Gyanvapi hearing over ‘Shivling’ worship deferred to Nov 14 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Monday October 17, a Varanasi court rejected pleas by six more entities who had moved court to be made parties to the Shringar Gauri case. Decision pertaining to three remaining pleas is expected on October 21.

As SabrangIndia has reported previously, at least 16 entities who have moved applications before the court of District Judge Ajay Kumar Vishvesha, at least 14 of these just between May 22 and 31, 2022, to be made parties to the case in line with Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This rule enables the court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence before the court is necessary in order to enable the court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

On September 22, the court heard the pleas. On Friday, October 14, the court rejected the applications of seven entities due to their absence in court, and another applicant withdrew their application. On Monday, October 17, the court rejected six more applications. These include two applications moved by Janudghosh Seva Sansthan, and one each by Swayambhu Jyotirling Bhagwan Visheshwar Swayam Prakat, Arun Pathak, Devendra Pathak and Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari, reported Times of India.

It is noteworthy that Ansari had moved the fast-track court asking permission to hold urs, offering chadar and fateha at mazars inside the Gyanvapi mosque. Another applicant is Vijay Shankar Rastogi who has a parallel plea as next friend of the deity demanding removal of the mosque from temple land.

The case will be heard next on October 21.

Related:

Gyanvapi case: AIM finally gets copy of survey report

Gyanvapi case: Varanasi court rejects plea to conduct carbon dating test of “shivling”

Gyanvapi case: Order in “shivling” carbon dating matter deferred

The post Gyanvapi case: Varanasi court rejects pleas to become party to case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM), which is the management committee of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, has finally been handed over a copy of the court-appointed Advocate Commissioners’ report on the videographic survey of the mosque that was carried out in May this year.

Readers would recall that in May this year, two days after the deadline set by the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ravi Kumar Diwakar, three Advocate Commissioners – Ajay Kumar Mishra, Ajay Singh and Vishal Singh – submitted their report and CDs of the survey in a sealed cover to the court. After this, on the order of the Supreme Court the case was transferred to the court of Judge Ajay Kumar Vishvesha of the Varanasi District Court.

On May 31, just minutes after copies of the report were handed over to handed in sealed envelopes to the plaintiffs Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak – the four Hindu women who had originally moved the petition to perform traditional prayers at the Maa Shringar Gauri temple that they say is located at the site of the Gyanvapi mosque – the report was leaked to the media. It is noteworthy that when they were given a copy of the report, all four gave an affidavit stating they will not make the findings public and paid a fee of Rs 2,100 each.

Interestingly, at that time, a copy of the survey report or CDs containing videos and images could not be given to the AIM. The Times of India had at that time quoted AIM’s lawyer advocate Abhay Nath Yadav as saying, “The formalities of furnishing an undertaking as per the court directive could not be completed on Monday. We will soon complete the formalities submitting an affidavit and deposit the prescribed fee to receive the CDs from court.” Therefore, it is clear that the mosque authorities were not responsible for the leak.

But on Friday, October 14, the AIM was finally given a copy of the survey report. AIM’s counsel told TOI, “Today, we received the report of the court commission survey, conducted between May 6 and 16, along with the video footages in order to complete the preparations for filing objections.” He further said, “We expect that further proceedings in case no. 18/2022 would be started immediately after issuance of the order of the district judge court on the issue of applications submitted to become a party in the case on October 17.”

This brings up the curious case of at least 16 entities who have moved applications before the court on September 22, to be made parties to the case in line with Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This rule enables the court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence before the court is necessary in order to enable the court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

The applications were moved shortly after the court had passed its judgment with respect to the maintainability of the suit and the court had heard them. Interestingly, both sides – the petitioners and the defendants – are opposed to new entities being added as parties. On Friday, October 14, the court rejected the applications of seven entities due to their absence in court, and another applicant withdrew their application. The decision on the remaining eight applications will now be made on October 17.

Related:

Gyanvapi case: Survey report findings leaked despite court’s warning

The post Gyanvapi case: AIM finally gets copy of survey report appeared first on SabrangIndia.