The Supreme Court judgment on the Babri mosque dispute case upheld this law, even directing that its sections must be seen as part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The PWA is and was an important legislative measure for ensuring lasting peace then, now and in future. The act of demolition of Babri was declared as a crime in the November 2019 judgement which also opined that there was no evidence of a temple below the mosque.

An  article in SabrangIndia  says “A top-notch archeologist, Prof Supriya Varma, who served as an observer during the excavation of the Babri Masjid site in early 2000s along with another archeologist, Jaya Menon, has controversially stated that not only was there “no temple under the Babri Masjid”, if one goes “beyond” the 12th century to 4th to 6th century, i.e. the Gupta period, “there seems to be a Buddhist stupa.”

At the time of demolition led by the extreme Hindu right wing, slogans were violent and threatening. The mob that climbed on to the mosque shouted “Yeh to kewal Jhanki hai, Kashi Mathura Baaki Hai” (This is just the beginning, Kashi; Mathura will be next). Some years ago the issue of both Kashi (Gyan Vapi Masjid) and Mathura (Idgah) was brought to the fore for “surveying”, despite the Places of Religious Worship Act, 1991 being in place. Ironically, Justice Chandrachud, himself one of the autthors of the Babri-Ayodhya judgement, opened the floodgates for future “disputes” by opining that the mere prayer of a survey below an existing place of worship is not prevented by the Act!! He added that Hindus have the “right to know the ancestry of the place.” Through this cynical wordplay, the Supreme Court itself allowed those perpetrating a distorted history, to gain legitimacy.

These forces, which had previously claimed that if the three shrines at Ajodhya, Kashi and Mathura are given to them, they will close their demands for other places of Hindu worship (lying under mosques) were not to be deterred by their own assurances. Currently, over 12 cases for survey are pending in the courts. Other issues like Kamaal Maula moque, Baba Budan Giri Dargah, Haji Malang Dargah and many more mosques areal so being pursued for claims by Hindus. There is a long list. As Sambhal Jama Masjid came under hammer, the centuries old Ajmer Dargah is also being claimed by Hindu Sena, which has sprung up to claim more and more sites to be given over to Hindus.

In these cases some doubtful documents are highlighted. In many of these the role of British officials is notorious, for example Mrs. Beevridge in translation of Babarnama,puts a footnote stating without any evidence that there might have been a temple underneath the mosque. There have been numerous examples of distorting history and multiple reasons for destroying temples, plundering wealth, humiliating the rival king being the main.

If we go a bit back in history the major cause of destroying Buddhist Vihars was religion. Swami Vivekananda shared the fact that, “The temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and re-Hinduised them…”. Swami Dayanand Saraswati while describing the contribution of Shankaracharya in his tome, Satyarth Prakash wrote: “For ten years he toured all over the country, refuted Jainism and advocated the Vedic religion. All the broken images that are now-a-days dug out of the earth were broken in the time of Shankar, whilst those that are found whole here and there under the ground had been buried by the Jainis for fear of their being broken.”

According to the Buddhist narrative of ancient Indian history the last of Maurya dynasty’s Buddhist king (Ashoka being one), Brihadratha was assassinated by Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin in 184 BCE thus ending the rule of a renowned Buddhist dynasty and establishing the rule of Shunga dynasty. DN Jha, outstanding ancient Indian historian, referred to Divyavadana, a Buddhist Sanskrit work from the early centuries which described how Buddhist and Jain religious places were destroyed by Pushyamitra Shunga, a great persecutor of Buddhists.

“He is said to have marched out with a large army, destroying stupas, burning monasteries and killing monks as far as Sakala, now known as Sialkot, where he announced a prize of one hundred dinars for every head of a Shramana (opposed to Vedas).”

Jha tells us that at Mathura, a flourishing town in western Uttar Pradesh during the Kushana period, some present-day Brahminical temples, such as those of Bhuteshwar and Gokarneshwar, were Buddhist sites in the ancient period.

History which has today been made the part of popular common sense is the one propagated by Hindu nationalist forces, simply because of the force of their organisation and resources. The roots of this lie in the British policy of ‘divide and rule’ which promoted Communal Historiography. In this the kings are presented as representatives of their religion. The focus is mainly on the medieval period where many Muslim kings ruled. During this period many temples were plundered for wealth and many others were demolished to humiliate the defeated kings.

What is forgotten and erased from memory is that even a ruler like Aurangzeb gave donations to Hindu temples (Kamakhaya Devi temple and Mahakal temple in Ujjain, being few of them) and Hindu Kings like Raja Harshdev appointed a special officer (Devottapatan Nayak) to plunder the wealth of temples (Kalhan, Rajtarangini). Maratha kings destroying a temple in Srirangpanam are ignored, this narrative swept under the carpet. During this period religion had very little role to play unlike the post Mauryan Period when to wipe out Buddhism, Buddha Viharas were destroyed.

Indian polity and judiciary have opened a Pandora’s Box which is deepening religious divides in the society. What is the need of the hour? To search for temple underneath every mosque or to build the ‘temples of Modern India’ as defined by Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, “while starting the construction of the Bhakra Nangal Dam to describe scientific research institutes, steel plants, power plants, dams being launched in India after independence to jumpstart scientific and industrial progress.”

The direction that India chooses will define its destiny.

Related:

Rising Tensions: Muslim Religious Sites face renewed attacks, demand for survey in Delhi’s Jama Masjid and Hanuman Chalisa

Safeguarding our shrines

How the Ajmer Shrine Brings Alive the Spirit of Ramzan & Islam

The post Sambhal Mosque, Ajmer Dargah: how deep do we plunge into the abyss? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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 prime minister’s constituency of Varanasi has now been converted into a city of cantonments with paramilitary and police deployed at several spots especially the areas around the Gyanvapi Masjid and Kashi Vishwanath temple. A high alert has been declared throughout Varanasi and forces from three districts have also been called.

On Friday, the Shahar Mufti of the city, Abdul Batin Nomani issued a sober and strong message for peace and restraint. Expressing anguish at recent developments in the area of politics and the judiciary, Batin spoke of the need to keep calm as this is a test of the fates for the Muslim community in general. He said Muslims in Banaras (Varanasi) and all over India were both anxious and pained by recent developments. Mufti Batin spoke to Sabrangindia too and relayed the pain and anguish being felt by the entire minority community.

Meanwhile, according to media reports, the Mosque Arrangement Committee has appealed to keep markets closed in minority areas today in protest against the worship in the basement of Vyapi. The Mosque Arrangement Committee has said that people should keep shops closed today and offer Namaz peacefully in their areas. In view of the announcement of Banaras bandh, the police have also become alert. A flag march was also conducted by the force on Thursday. Police forces of Ghazipur, Chandauli and Jaunpur along with three companies’ PAC, RAF have been deployed.

The statement states that the current crisis of the Gyan Vapi Mosque has been brought about by the justice system. The statement recalled when, the dispute, being heard for over two-three years suddenly reached a stage that the court, on August 28, 2023 asked whether there could be “out of court settlement”. After this, when, five months later, on January 31, a few hours before the retirement of the judge in question, an order that amounted to snatching away justice from one party was passed, overnight on February 1, the barricading in place ordered by constitutional officers in the Supreme Court were pulled down.

The statement goes on to elaborate, “The foundation of this barricading was laid by giving an affidavit in the court and in the dark of night, the idols were admitted to the southern basement of the mosque.”

Further, in anguish the Mosque Committee adds, “These old eyes also saw an upsetting day for the Indian justice system. This is a big test for the Constitution and those who believe in the Constitution. We are facing many hurdles in search of justice. The Supreme Court has washed its hands off such an important issue by sending it to the High Court. But here we would definitely like to ask those who took the oath of the Constitution, whether they would have shown the same promptness in implementing the decision of the Supreme Court regarding Namaz in Tilbhandeshwar Mosque and would have given orders on the petition of District Judge Mukhtar Ansari before retirement?” The statement has been issued by S M Yasin Joint Secretary Anjuman Masajid”

Special vigil in Muslim areas

Special caution is being taken in Muslim dominated areas. Eye force and PAC have been deployed from outside for patrolling. RAF has been deployed in highly sensitive areas. Police officers have been instructed to ensure deployment of adequate number of forces outside all mosques, big and small. It has also been said that no crowd should be allowed to gather outside any religious place.

Hearing in High Court on appeal of Muslim side today

Meanwhile, a challenge has been filed in the Allahabad High Court by the Muslim side against the decision of giving the right to worship in Vyas ji’s basement. Hearing in this matter may take place today. A caveat has also been filed by the Hindu side saying that their side should also be heard. This appeal has at the time of going to press rejected any interim stay on the Puja inside the Gyan Vapi Masjid and merely directed the government “to maintain law and order.”

#BREAKING | No interim stay on Puja inside #VyasTehkhana. #AllahabadHighCourt directs state govt to maintain law and order situation in the area.#Gyanvapi #GyanvapiMosque #GyanvapiMasjid https://t.co/CpJUk5rqMD

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 2, 2024

Background

District Judge Dr. Ajay Krishna Vishwesh, who was hearing the Gyanvapi case of Varanasi, had given the verdict in the Gyanvapi case on the day of his retirement. In 2016, a petition was filed in the District Judge’s court regarding the authority for worship in the basement of Gyanvapi. On this petition, the arguments of both the parties in this case were completed in the court of District Judge Dr. Ajay Krishna Vishwesh on January 30. On January 31, District Judge Dr. Ajay Krishna Vishwesh gave the Hindu side the right to worship in the basement of Vyasji.

The party of rightwing Hindus represented by lawyer Madan Mohan Yadav, while talking to PTI-Bhasha, confirmed this and said that the court of District Judge Ajay Krishna Vishwesh has given the right to perform puja in the basement to one Shailendra Pathak. He told that the administration will make arrangements to conduct the puja within seven days. Kashi Vishwanath Trust will do the work of conducting the puja.

Sabrang India had talked to Mufti Banaras Batin Saab regarding this matter. He had said that our lawyers are studying the survey report. The reply will be filed in the court when the time comes. Regarding the news of chaos that came from Gyanvapi on the first Friday after the release of the survey report, he said that like every time, Namaz was offered here regularly but fifty people from the media reached there regarding the survey report and from the mosque. He forcibly stopped the people coming out and started gathering their reaction. During this, he created such a scene as if a fight had taken place. But all the Namazis were asking him not to talk to them and asking him to leave the path. He said that the media is presenting the report itself as a verdict, which is wrong according to the principles and standards of journalism.

Banaras District Judge Dr. Ajay Krishna Vishwesh had said that if there is any objection in the survey report, both the parties can file it in the court by February 6, 2024. Last year, on December 18, 2023, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had submitted the survey report in a sealed envelope in the District Court. Commissioner survey was conducted in Gyanvapi Masjid in May 2022. Last year, a survey was conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The Hindu side had demanded the court to make the survey report public, but the Muslim side had objected to it. However, the Muslim side had also demanded a certified copy of the survey report. When this matter was heard in the Varanasi District Court on January 24, 2024, the District Judge ruled to give hard copies of the survey report to all the parties.

Related:

Gyanvapi, Mathura: Apex Court order not to entertain Mughal rulers’ ‘actions’ ignored

The SC’s decision on ASI Survey of Gyanvapi: An analysis

UP: After Gyanvapi, Mathura Court Orders Shahi Idgah Survey; ‘Violation’ of Places of Worship Act, Say Activists

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

Essentially, the host, Rakesh Pandey, had picked up a matter that was sub-judice, and presented only one sided facts of the case. Even before the debate had started, the Host had started spreading his diatribe and polarized views. The host tried to build the premise of the show by depicting the Muslim community in a suspicious light, questioning their intentions behind urging an estoppel on the survey. The host had intentionally put polarizing and accusatory questions to the participants of the debate to put seeds of doubt in the minds of his audience by terming the stay on the survey as an attempt to delay the result as “Muslims were scared of the truth coming out.”

Prior to the debate segment, the host had announced the questions upon which the discussion were to take place. The questions, provided below, were instigating and communal in itself:

“1. What was found in those four hours of survey that led to the chaos amongst the Muslim parties?

2. Why are the Muslim parties so afraid of uncovering the truth beneath the Gyanvapi mosque?
3. Did the Survey team actually find the evidence of a Temple?
4. The ASI Survey has been stopped on an interim basis, what will happen afterwards?
5. Will there be a ‘Gyanvapi movement’ after the survey?”

During the debate segment, a full on media trial on the Gyanvapi mosque case had ensured. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, the advocate on record (AOR) representing the Hindu parties in the court in the Gyanvapi Mosque case were also a part of the panel.  The debate show appeared more like a one sided show promoting the host’s version of the Hindu cause or a religious/sectarian debate rather than a news room debate. In its complaint, CJP also highlighted certain extracts from the show that are specifically contentious.

The complaint stated: “Instead of framing an issue in a sober fashion with an intent to explore various aspects of the debate, the host continued the debate representing his own version of the ‘Hindu cause’. This displays partisan coverage and does not fit well with democratic, constitutional principles of independent journalism. The host continued throughout the show while making some extremely problematic statements towards the end too. At one point towards the end of the debate, the host asked advocate Jain whether the fight of Gyanvapi will be as prolonged as the fight over Ayodhya was for. While the host himself made the comparison of the Gyanvapi case with Ayodhya case, he has also accused the Muslims for comparing the said situation to Babri Masjid to provoke the Muslim Community.”

In the complaint, CJP also emphasized that the not once was it put to question as to whether the Muslim parties had the right to approach the Supreme Court or not. Not once did the host show any doubt regarding the existence of a temple beneath the Mosque, rather have repeatedly implied that the truth of the temple will come out. Thus, it was undoubted that the host let his biases and prejudices against the Muslim community cloud the role he is supposed to play in a debate show and made it evident that he was batting for the Hindu cause.

The complaint stated: “He kept reiterating through the show that the Muslim community, by approaching the Supreme Court, was against the truth coming out, making the entire show a communal battleground. This does not only violate the made guidelines issued by the News Broadcasting Digital and Standards Authority (NBDSA) from time to time of which the channel is a member but also stands in violation of our constitutional principles.”

Through the complaint, CJP has sought the removal of the impugned content from all social media accounts of the channel, and issuance of a public apology for the communal reportage.

The full complaint may be read here:

Related:

Another complaint to Times Now on polarised debate over Madrassa survey in UP

Times Now Navbharat uses ‘mazaar jihad’ in a show, CJP sends complaint

CJP Victory! NBDSA fines News18 over hateful shows

CJP Victory: NBDSA slams fine of Rs. 25,000 on News18

NBDSA: CJP escalates complaint against Times Now Navbharat’s ‘Zameen Jihad’ Show

The post Times Now Navbharat conducts media trial over Gyanvapi Mosque survey, CJP sends complaint 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.

In fresh developments in the matter pertaining to the Gyanvapi mosque case, the court of Varanasi district judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesh had reserved its order pertaining to the admissibility of a petition by the Vishwa Vaidik Sanatan Sangh (VVSS), that demands that a First Information Report (FIR) be filed against the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM), the committee that manages the Gyanvapi mosque.

Jagran reports that appearing for the petitioners, advocate Shivam Gaud submitted that the petitioner fears that symbols related to Hinduism were being destroyed by the mosque committee. The AIM meanwhile submitted that the case related to the main matter was already being heard by the court and therefore the petition for filing an FIR should not be entertained.

SabrangIndia had reported previously how VVSS, led by Jitendra Singh ‘Visen’ alleges that the AIM has damaged the basic structure of the Lord Visheshwar temple located on the mosque premises, and demanded that the FIR be filed as per provisions of the Places of Worship Act. VVSS had first moved the court of the special chief judicial magistrate, but it rejected this petition. On June 14, VVSS moved the district court, and was heard on June 23.

Readers would recall that VVSS had moved another petition on May 24, demanding a ban on the entry of Muslims in the Gyanvapi premises. But this petition that was originally moved before the court of civil judge (senior division) Ravi Kumar Diwakar, was subsequently transferred on May 25 by District Judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha to the fast-track court of civil judge (senior division) Mahendra Kumar Pandey.

This was after the Supreme Court transferred the case involving maintainability of the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code from the court of judge Diwakar to the district judge. That matter is scheduled to be heard on July 4, while the matter in the fast-track court will be heard next on July 8. 

In related developments, civil judge (senior division) Ravi Kumar Diwakar, who had originally ordered the video survey of the mosque premises, and also ordered that the mosque area be sealed after a “Shivling” was found in the Wazu Khana (ablution tank) has now been transferred. Diwakar had been receiving death threats in wake of his decisions. The transfer notification was issued by the Registrar General on June 20, and pertains to transfers of 213 civil judges (junior division), 285 additional district and sessions judges, and 121 civil judges (Senior division), reported Times of India. Diwakar is among 619 judicial officers transferred. He is to assume his next charge at the Bareilly district court by July 4.

Related:

Gyanvapi case: VVSS demands FIR against mosque authorities
Gyanvapi Case: Varanasi Court rejects plea seeking permission to worship alleged ‘Shivling’ inside the mosque
Gyanvapi case: Survey report findings leaked despite court’s warning
Gyanvapi case: District court adjourns hearings in maintainability suit till July 4
Gyanvapi case: Hearing continues on provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC
Gyanvapi case: Two Kashi Vishwanath Mahants debunk ‘Shivling’ claims

The post Gyanvapi case: Varanasi court reserves order on admitting petition pertaining to FIR against mosque committee appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In wake of a blatant death threat issued to Muslim worshippers at Varanasi’s Gyanvapi mosque by one Pandit Ravi Sonkar, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has urged Uttar Pradesh’s Director General of Police to take strict action against the hate offender.

In  out complaint dated May 30, 2022, we have written to UP DGP Dr. Devendra Singh Chauhan apprising him of how Sonkar, who is reportedly a Bajrang Dal member from Kanpur, has openly threatened to kill Muslims who have performed Wazu (traditional ablutions) before offering prayers at Gyanvapi Mosque. In a video that has gone viral, Sonkar accused them of deliberately insulting the “Shivling” that was found in the ablution tank, by washing hands, mouths and feet in it.

It is noteworthy that the mosque authorities say that the stone structure being called a “Shivling” by lawyers of the petitioners in the ongoing case that is being heard before a district court, is just a part of an old defunct fountain. Moreover, no competent authority has authenticated the structure as a “Shivling”, in fact two Mahants of the Kashi temple have debunked the “Shivling” theory. But this has had no effect on right-wing extremists.

“We will behead them,” Sonkar is seen and heard saying in the video clip, for washing “dirty, hands and feet” in the tank. The hardliner also claimed that the Muslim devotees “washed mouths” above the “Shivling”. He is referring to the structure found in the Wazu Khana (pre prayer ablution tank). Trying to sound more dramatic, he then says, “We will chop off those hands, feet, and necks.”

Ravi Sonkar removed the video from his Facebook wall, perhaps fearing police action, after it was exposed on Twitter and then locked his profile which was previously open to public. However, CJP came across a screen recording of his profile along with the video on Twitter and relied upon the same for reporting him.

Hello @kanpurnagarpol @igrangekanpur @Uppolice @KanpurOuterpol @kanpurdehatpol
The guy from Bajrang Dal is threatning to K!|| Muslims who’ve offered prayed in Kashi #GyanvapiMosque pic.twitter.com/yuaTWUmAht

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) May 17, 2022

Considering the sensitive atmosphere today when everyday verbal and physical aggression is being unleashed on certain sections of our population, to the point where minority communities in various parts of India already feel insecure and threatened, the complaint urged the authority to take stringent action in order to set a precedent for like-minded people to prevent them from making such inflammatory statements online with impunity.

According to CJP, this kind of derogatory and inflammatory speech, which is illegal and unconstitutional, violates the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Information Technology Act, 2000.

Urging the authority to consider the seriousness of the offence, the complaint relied upon the following judicial precedents prohibiting hate speech:

Jitendra Narayan Tyagi alias Waseem Rizvi vs. State of Uttarakhand [First Bail Application No.161 of 2022] – The Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court rejecting the bail application of serial hate offender, Jitendra Tyagi, held that Hate Speech didn’t fall under the purview of the fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression granted under Article 19(1(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Court insisted moreover that “a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society,” the Uttarakhand High Court overturned an earlier order by a Sessions Court. Examining closely the balancing rights available under the Indian Constitution, the Court further held, “No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them.”

Amish Devgan vs Union Of India 2021 1 SCC 1– The Supreme Court quoted Benjamin Franklin, “It remains difficult in law to draw the outmost bounds of freedom of speech and expression, the limit beyond which the right would fall foul and can be subordinated to other democratic values and public law considerations, so as to constitute a criminal offence. The difficulty arises in ascertaining the legitimate countervailing public duty, and in proportionality and reasonableness of the restriction which criminalises written or spoken words. Further, criminalisation of speech is often demarcated and delineated by the past and recent significant events affecting the nation including explanation of their causes. Therefore, constitutional and statutory treatment of ‘hate speech’ depends on the values sought to be promoted, perceived harm involved and the importance of these harms. Consequently, a universal definition of ‘hate speech’ remains difficult, except for one commonality that ‘incitement to violence’ is punishable.” In that judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborated on the concept of Hate Speech by identifying three elements: Content-based, Intent-based, Harm-based/Impact- based. In the same case, the Apex court also cited Andre Sellars from his essay ‘Defining Hate Speech’ where he examined the concept of hate speech in different democratic jurisdictions and formulated common traits in defining ‘hate speech’.

State of Karnataka and anr vs. Dr Pravinbhai Togadia (2004) 4 SCC 684– The Supreme Court held, “Communal harmony should not be made to suffer and be made dependent upon the will of an individual or a group of individuals whatever be their religion bit of a minority or that of the majority… the valuable and cherished right of freedom of expression and speech may at times have to be subjected to reasonable subordination to social interests needs and necessities to preserve the very core of democratic life preservation of public order and rule of law. At some such grave situation at least the decision as to the need and necessity to take private reactions must be left to the discretion of those entrusted with the duty of maintaining law and order and interposition of courts…”

Firoz Iqbal Khan vs Union of India [W.P (Civ.) No. 956 of 2020]– The Supreme Court had held, “… the edifice of a democratic society committed to the rule of law under a regime of constitutional rights, values and duties is founded on the co-existence of communities. India is a melting pot of civilizations, cultures, religions and languages. Any attempt to vilify a religious community must be viewed with grave disfavour by this Court as the custodian of constitutional values.”

Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, (Ref: AIR 2014 SC 1591, at para. 7.)– The Supreme Court has unambiguously stated that hate speech is an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership to a group, that can have a social impact. Moreover, the Court stated that hate speech lays the groundwork for broad attacks on the vulnerable that can range from discrimination, to ostracism, deportation, violence, and even to genocide. Therefore, the aforementioned news items are tantamount to the perpetration of genocide, and must be considered to be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

The entire complaint may be read here:

Related:

CJP Impact: YouTube responds to CJP’s complaint, takes down hate filled content!
CJP’s next step in countering Online Hate: YouTube urged to take action against hateful content
CJP Impact: Twitter suspends 21 accounts threatening Muslim women with sexual violence
CJP approaches Twitter over sexually violent content against Muslim women
Facebook refuses to act on CJP’s complaints against Ragini Tiwari
CJP Impact: NCM acts on CJP’s complaint against Hate Offender Pravin Togadia
CJP moves NCM over Pravin Togadia’s communal oath at Trishul Diksha even
CJP moves NCM against Adesh Gupta for calling Bangladeshi and Rohingya immigrants ‘Terrorists’
CJP moves NCM over Haribhushan Thakur Bachaul’s anti-Muslim genocidal speech
Apply more stringent sections in FIR against Bajrang Muni Das: CJP to UP DGP

The post CJP moves UP DGP over Pandit Ravi Sonkar’s death threats to Muslim worshipers at Gyanvapi mosque appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Friday, even as the Supreme Court transferred the Gyanvapi case from the trial court judge to a more senior and experienced district court judge, Muslims in Varanasi worked towards maintaining peace and harmony. The community has stayed calm and there have been no reports of any outbreak of violence despite the communally charged nature of the case.

Members of the community showed restraint and did not make any inflammatory statements even when egged on by a section of the news media to do so. A cursory look at “vox pops” by local and national news media reporters shows that the community is determined not to be triggered into saying something that might spark violence or instigate others to do something rash.

For example, when a Shining India reporter asked a group of men about the 400-year-old mosque, they responded by asking him, “Why don’t you ask questions about education?” If some community member does feel triggered, others around him act quickly to diffuse tensions and advise them against speaking to the press. Others remain calm and offer mature responses. “We Muslims think of India as our country and want to live here in peace,” was a common response. There is also a high-level of awareness about the law, especially the Places of Worship Act, among community members, something they refer to whenever pressed to comment on the subject.

A lot of this is the result of a sustained campaign by peace activists of all faiths in Varanasi, where they hold daily meetings in communally sensitive neighbourhoods and urge people, especially the youth, to stay calm and ensure peace prevails. SabrangIndia had reported previously about how at least 40 such activists had come together on Monday, May 16 at a meeting and decided:

1)     To go to communally sensitive neighbourhoods and hold meetings with residents, particularly youth to dissuade them from engaging in violence.

2)     To meet various business owners and traders to devise ways to protect shops and commercial establishments.

3)     To hold daily meetings between 4 P.M and 5 P.M in different spots across the city with local residents to ascertain if they fear any outbreak of violence and discuss measures to counter the same.

4)     To hold meetings with leaders and preachers of all faiths to urge them to inspire their followers to stay calm and not engage in violence.

5)     To not allow any outside elements to take over the peace initiative as many of them are just seen as publicity hungry self-styled activists who are only interested in media coverage.

6)     A delegation of activists is also likely to meet members of the civic administration and police force.

7)     To hold sensitization meetings with local media-persons so that mis-reportage and fake news are prevented from vitiating an already charged atmosphere.

There are also ongoing discussions about holding an interfaith peace march. However, in light of the outbreak of violence in other parts of the country during Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti, there are fears that such a rally could be infiltrated by miscreants in a bid to discredit the objectives of the organisers. These concerns may also lead the police to not give permission for the march in the first place, and the activists are determined to operate strictly within the purview of the law.

Meanwhile, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM), which is the Gyanvapi mosque management authority, had shown tremendous wisdom on Friday, when it issued a notice requesting devotes to not come to the mosque in large numbers and instead perform Friday prayers in their own neighbourhoods as the Wazu tank and restrooms had been sealed by the trial court after a lawyer for the Hindu petitioners claimed that a “Shivling” was found there. The finding has not been corroborated. In fact, mosque authorities insist that it is just a part of an old fountain that stood at the spot. Mosque authorities also suggested that devotees could perform Wazu and use restrooms before coming to the mosque. However, when nearly 1,200 people turned up at the mosque as opposed to the usual 400, mosque authorities had to shut the gate and request the excess people to leave as the maximum capacity of the mosque is only 700 people. The Supreme Court has now directed that arrangements be made to ensure devotees can perform “Wazu” (ritual ablutions before prayers) at the Gyanvapi mosque. The Times of India reports that two drums and 1,000 liters of water have been provided for Wazu so far.

However, next door in Bihar, the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) took to the streets last night to protest the developments in the Gyanvapi case. Shamim Akhter, the state president of the party claimed that the Central government was resorting to creating a communal divide as it was failing to deliver on developmental parameters. “All this time everything was quiet, and now a Shivling has suddenly appeared,” he told YouTube news channel The Activist, adding, “The whole country knows what Yogi and Modi are up to.” He further called the discovery of the “Shivling” a form of “propaganda and conspiracy”. He further said, “There was no justice in the Babri case, only a decision.” Now, while this could be seen as triggering, one must remember that this was a comment by a politician and not an ordinary Muslim person. Despite such comments, the march was peaceful and no outbreak of violence has been reported so far.

Meanwhile, the SC has warned against any further leaks of the data gathered during the video survey at the mosque. LiveLaw quoted Justice DY Chandrachud as saying, “The selective leaks of Commission report must stop,” and that, “Once there is a commission report, it should be submitted to the court. Do not leak things to the press. You must present it to the judge.”

Readers would recall that On May 17, the trial court had removed Ajay Kumar Mishra as one of the Advocate Commissioners tasked to conduct a video survey of the Gyanvapi mosque, for allegedly leaking information to the press. Mishra squarely blamed his cameraman for the leak. This is the same Advocate Commissioner that the AIM had claimed was biased and sought removal of previously. A cameraman named Ganesh was the one who was hired for the video survey from the very outset, and he had not made any statements about the findings of the survey, no matter how much newspersons probed him. But Mishra had also hired a private cameraman named Vibhash Dubey who made a series of “revelations” to different media channels.

Related:

Gyanvapi case: SC transfers the case from Trial Court to District Court
Gyanvapi case: Mosque authorities advise devotees against turning up for namaz in large numbers
Varanasi peace activists begin campaign to maintain communal harmony
Halt Gyan Vapi proceedings today: SC to Varanasi Court
Gyanvapi case: Video survey report to be submitted before Varanasi court today
Gyanvapi case: “Shivling” controversy continues
SC orders “Shivling” to be protected without denying Muslims access to the mosque
Gyanvapi case: Varanasi court removes controversial Advocate Commissioner
Shivling ‘found’ on Gyanvapi mosque premises, court orders area sealed
Gyanvapi case: Two more advocate commissioners added to Shringar Gauri survey team
Gyanvapi case: Court to pronounce order in Shringar Gauri temple survey matter today
Gyanvapi case: One out of five withdrawing name from Maa Shringar Gauri temple petition?
Gyanvapi case: Videographic survey of Maa Shringar Gauri temple begins
Gyanvapi case: Allahabad HC stays ASI survey, proceedings before lower court
Gyanvapi case: Varanasi court to hear petition to hold prayers in Shringar Gauri temple

The post Gyanvapi case: Varanasi Muslims display maturity, maintain peace appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM), which is the Gyanvapi mosque management authority, has recently issued a notice advising devotees about the changes at the mosque premises, advising them about alternate arrangements.

Readers would recall how a lower court in Varanasi had sealed the Wazu Khana, a water tank where devotees perform ablutions before offering prayers, after a “Shivling” was allegedly found there during the recently concluded video survey.

When the matter went to the Supreme Court, the court said that the area would remain sealed but without denying Muslims the right to access and pray at the mosque. But now it appears that the sealing of the Wazu Khana is indeed impacting devotees.

To peacefully address the situation the mosque authorities issued a notice in Urdu and Hindi that said, “As the Wazu Khana and restrooms have been sealed, this has caused some inconvenience to devotees. As the number of devotees is significantly higher during Jumma Nazam (Friday prayers), we request you not to turn up for namaz in large numbers. We advise you to consider performing namaz in your neighbourhoods. The people who do turn up for Jumma Namaz are advised to perform Wazu and use restrooms at home before coming for Namaz.”

The notice may be read here: 

This is an incredibly mature decision taken by mosque authorities to handle the matter peacefully, especially given how everyone has been dreading an outbreak of communal violence. The mosque authorities remain committed to following operating within the purview of the law and making sure the orders passed by the various courts are followed. They are also determined to ensure that communal harmony prevails. At the same time, they are also committed to the comfort of devotees who visit the mosque. Therefore, this notice addresses all concerns equally.

UPDATE:

However, despite the mosque management committee’s appeals over 1,000 people turned up at the mosque for Friday prayers. Dainik Bhaskar reported that where ordinarily about 400 people would come to offer Jumma Namaz (Friday Prayers), today nearly 1,200 people turned up! The maximum capacity of the mosque is 700 people. The authorities had to shut the mosque gates and request excess people to leave. To ensure that no untoward incident takes place, police personnel deployed at the mosque and also near the Kashi Vishwanath temple next to it, as well as a Local Intelligence Unit are on high alert.

Meanwhile, proceedings will continue at the Supreme Court at 3 P.M today. The SC had stopped the lower court from conducting any proceedings yesterday. The Advocate Commissioners had also submitted the survey reports to the lower court yesterday. The findings have not been made public yet.

Brief background of the case

The Gyanvapi mosque has been in the eye of the storm as it was built after Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb razed a portion of the Kashi Vishwanath temple, many claim that the mosque was built using the temple’s debris. Hardline Hindutva groups, feeling particularly empowered in wake of the Ayodhya dispute verdict, have been demanding that the mosque land be given back to the temple authorities. A slew of petitions has been filed over the last two years.

One such petition was filed in August 2021, five women, one of whom has since withdrawn her name from the case. They had moved the Civil Court (Senior Division), demanding that the Maa Shringar Gauri Temple be reopened, and people be allowed to offer prayers before the idols that are still kept there. The petitioners cited the right to practice one’s faith and religious freedom guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution.

On April 8, 2022, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi, Ravi Kumar Diwakar had appointed Advocate Commissioner Ajai Kumar to carry out the survey and asked him to submit a report at the next hearing on May 10. It is noteworthy that this is distinct from the survey by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI), as that was stayed by the Allahabad High Court. The authorities began conducting the video survey on May 5.

But the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM), which is the mosque management authority, opposed this and moved court. However, their petition against the survey was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on April 21. The lower court in Varanasi, on April 26, then again passed an order to carry out the survey, though now it appears that there was some ambiguity about where the survey could be conducted, specifically if it could be conducted inside the temple that is located on mosque land that is a Wakf property. The mosque authorities raised concerns as they claim this violates the principle of non-retrogression under the Places of Worship Act. But the petitioners say the same law would be applicable if it is discovered that there was originally a temple on the mosque and therefore the survey is important.

The AIM opposed videography inside the mosque and also alleged that Advocate Commissioner Ajay Kumar was “biased”. They moved court again on May 7. Hearings took place on May 10 and 11 following which the court ordered on May 12 that while it will not replace or remove Ajay Kumar as Advocate Commissioner, it will appoint two more Advocate Commissioners to conduct the survey and submit a report by May 17. The court said, “The survey will be conducted in Gyanvapi mosque and the entire barricaded area. Authorities will photograph and videograph the area. District authorities are ordered to open/break the lock of the basement and allow videography there as well.”

The survey ended on Monday, May 16, when the Shivling controversy broke out. An advocate representing the Hindu petitioners in the case moved an application before the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) saying that a Shivling, a stone sculpture considered holy by Hindus, was discovered on the premises. Responding to the application, the judge immediately ordered the area sealed.

While advocate Vishnu Jain claimed the “Shivling” was found in a well, another advocate Madan Mohan Yadav claimed it was facing Nandi (a statue of a holy cow). Details of the survey’s findings were to be submitted to the court by May 17 and have not been made public so far. In fact, when India Today probed the videographer, he simply said that he was not allowed to divulge any details. Though another cameraman Vibhash Dubey, who was a private cameraman allegedly hired by Mishra made statements about finding lotus and swastika motifs in sculptures, these being symbols associated with Hinduism. Some images and videos also found their way to different publications and news channels.

All this has transpired even though the official report has not been submitted to the court, the deadline is tomorrow. Moreover, no relevant authority has confirmed that the structure found was indeed a “Shivling”, a stone sculpture considered holy by Hindus.

Meanwhile, mosque authorities denied that the object found was a “Shivling” and said that it was actually a part of a fountain that once stood at the spot. The AIM was also displeased with how the court ordered the area sealed without even listening to the mosque authorities. The AIM moved court asking for an urgent listing and on May 17, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha heard the appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court order which permitted a court commissioner appointed by Varanasi Civil Court to inspect, conduct survey and videography, the Gyanvapi mosque.

Senior Counsel Huzefa Ahmadi appearing for the appellant reportedly argued, “Despite this matter being seized of by this court, the commission went. Despite the fact no report was filed, application by plaintiff said there was a Shivling somewhere near the pond, this was highly improper. Such proceedings had to be confidential. Trial court allows the application and sealed off the area prohibiting entry. We brought this into record by an interim application.”

The Masjid Committee had opposed the suit by filing an application for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11, on the ground that both the suits filed in 1991 and 2021 are barred by the provisions of Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court orders which categorically held that the religious character of a place as on August 15, 1947 cannot be tinkered wih.

The Supreme Court ordered that the area continue to be sealed, but without denying Muslims access to the mosque for prayers. On the same day, i.e May 17, the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) removed Ajay Kumar Mishra as one of the Advocate Commissioners tasked to conduct a video survey of the Gyanvapi mosque. This is the same Advocate Commissioner that the AIM had claimed was biased and sought removal of earlier. AC Vishal Singh also moved an application before the court seeking two more days to include all facts in the report. The court granted the extension, and the report was filed on May 19, 2022. The contents have not been made public officially.

Interestingly, the petitioners also moved an application to conduct a new survey of the premises. They want a survey of the wall that stands to the north of the Shivling and the basement area facing the statue of Nandi.

On May 19, 2022, the Supreme Court ordered the Varanasi Civil Court to not proceed further in the matter pertaining to the Gyanvapi mosque, and adjourned the hearing till 3 P.M on May 20 when it will be heard by a three-judge bench.

Related:

Halt Gyan Vapi proceedings today: SC to Varanasi Court

Gyanvapi case: Video survey report to be submitted before Varanasi court today

Gyanvapi case: “Shivling” controversy continues

SC orders “Shivling” to be protected without denying Muslims access to the mosque

Gyanvapi case: Varanasi court removes controversial Advocate Commissioner

Shivling ‘found’ on Gyanvapi mosque premises, court orders area sealed

Gyanvapi case: Two more advocate commissioners added to Shringar Gauri survey team

Gyanvapi case: Court to pronounce order in Shringar Gauri temple survey matter today

Gyanvapi case: One out of five withdrawing name from Maa Shringar Gauri temple petition?

Gyanvapi case: Videographic survey of Maa Shringar Gauri temple begins

Gyanvapi case: Allahabad HC stays ASI survey, proceedings before lower court

Gyanvapi case: Varanasi court to hear petition to hold prayers in Shringar Gauri temple

The post Gyanvapi case: Mosque authorities advise devotees against turning up for namaz in large numbers appeared first on SabrangIndia.