A civil suit has been filed in Varanasi, before a District seeking “restoration of performance of rituals at the principal seat of an Ancient Temple at the Gyanvapi mosque area”. The suit has been filed by devotees and worshippers of Lord Shiva, practicing the vedic sanatan Hindu dharma, according to LiveLaw.

The suit states that every citizen has a fundamental right to perform pooja, worship and rituals according to the tenets of his religion within the ambit of Article 25 and any obstacle created before January 26, 1950 has become null and void by virtue of Article 13(1). Therefore, the plea states, “An idol worshipper cannot complete his pooja and gain spiritual advantages without having objects of worship. Any hindrance/ obstacle created in performance of pooja, is denial of right to religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India”.

The plaintiffs have alleged that the said ancient temple was desecrated and damaged in the year 1669 under the orders of Aurangzeb which the suit terms as “one of the most cruel rulers of India,” claimed by the Muslim community to be part of the Gyanvapi mosque, reported LiveLaw.

The plea reads, “It is historically proved that in 1585, Raja Todar Mal, the finance Minister of Akbar, who was Governor of Jaunpur, had re-established and reconstructed a magnificent Lord Shiva Temple at its original place consisting of a central sanctum sanctorum (Garbh Griha) surrounded by Eight mandaps and pavilions, which is known as old temple.”

The plea also claims that the Pooja and worship of Goddess Gauri is “compulsory to achieve the fruit of worship of lord Vishwanath.” Moreover, according to the plaintiffs it is contended that the devotees have been worshipping the daily pooja at the disputed place which was restricted in the 1990 during the Ayodhya movement by the Uttar Pradesh government “to appease Muslims”.

According to LiveLaw, the plea reads, “That Aurangzeb, one of the cruellest Islamic rulers, was the champion in destruction of Hindu temples. He had issued ‘Farmaans’ in the year 1669 to destroy many temples including Kashi and Mathura, which were prominently worshipped by Hindus. The administration complied with the order and demolished a portion of temple of the Adi Visheshwar at Varanasi and later on a construction was raised which they alleged Gyanvapi Mosque, but they could not change the religious charter of Hindu temple as the idol of Goddess Shringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh and other associate deities continued in the same building complex.”

Finally, the plea by the devotees also believe that, “The Parliament has no power or jurisdiction to negate Hindu Law protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India and cannot interfere with rights of Hindus as enshrined in Vedas, Shartras, Upnishads, Smrities and other scripture having the force of law.”

LiveLaw reported that the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs is to pass a decree in the nature of declaration stating that the worshippers are entitled to have Darshan, Pooja and Worship of deities within the area. They have also prayed that the entire disputed area be given to the deity Asthan Lord Adi Visheshwar situated at Dashashwamedh in the heart of the city of Varanasi.

The plaintiff also sought a decree in the nature of perpetual injunction against defendants prohibiting them, and their workers, agents, officers, officials and every person acting under them from interfering with, or raising any objection or obstruction in the construction of new temple building after demolishing and removing the existing buildings and structures etc, situated thereat, in so far as it may be necessary are expedient to do so for the said purpose.

Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs, State of Uttar Pradesh, D.M. Varanasi, Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, Sunni Central Waqf Board, Committee of Management Anjuman Intazamia Masajid and Board of Trustees- Kashis Vishwanath Temple have been made the defendants in the matter.

Related:

No one conspired to demolish Babri Masjid?
Babri Masjid demolition case: The long road to justice
Demolish temple to build mosque: Sajid Rashidi stokes controversy

The post Gyanvyapi mosque case: Suit filed in Varanasi court for restoration of temple appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On June 11, the Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh (VBPPM) moved the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Specifically, it seeks to declare section 4 of the Act unconstitutional. This has far reaching ramifications for several mosques across India, most notably the Gyan Vyapi mosque in Varanasi.

Therefore, the Jamiat-Ulema-i-Hind (JUH), a Muslim NGO, has now, on June 13, moved the Supreme Court, asking for it to be made party to the case in a bid to foil the right-wing attempt to further divide the country along communal lines. Let us take a closer look at the case.

Places of Worship Act

It is Section 4 of the Act that is being challenged by the VBPPM. Here’s what it says.

Section 4 (1) states, “It is hereby declared that the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day.”

Section 4 (2) states, “If, on the commencement of this Act, any suit, appeal or other proceeding with respect to the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship, existing on the 15th day of August, 1947, is pending before any court, tribunal or other authority, the same shall abate, and no suit, appeal or other proceeding with respect to any such matter shall lie on or after such commencement in any court, tribunal or other authority: Provided that if any suit, appeal or other proceeding, instituted or filed on the ground that conversion has taken place in the religious character of any such place after the 15th day of August, 1947, is pending on the commencement of this Act, such suit, appeal or other proceeding shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1).”

VBPPM’s petition

In its petition, the VBPPM said, “Petitioners feel that Hindus should take legal remedy to restore the temples and religious places which were destroyed, damaged, desecrated, during foreign rule and at the same very place the followers of another faith have raised their religious construction and such action has to be remedied by the courts by applying appropriate law and Hindus should get justice from the tyranny of invaders. Since the impugned Act has taken away the right to approach the court and right to remedy has been completely locked, the petitioners feel their bounden duty to raise the issue under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as impugned Act is ultra virus (sic) to Article 14, 15, 25, 26 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India and also the against the principle of Secularism, held to be one of the basic feature of the Constitution of India.”

However, this petition has widespread ramifications for several mosques, including those in Varanasi, Mathura and other places across India. This prompted the JUH to move SC.

JUH’s petition

The petition moved by the JUH defends the Places of Worship Act saying, “The law speaks to our history and to the future of the nation. Cognizant as we are of our history and of the need for the nation to confront it, Independence was a watershed moment to heal the wounds of the past. Historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands. In preserving the character of places of public worship, Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future.”

The petition says, “Since the present Petition proceeds on the basis that the impugned provision, i.e., Section 4 of the Places of Worship Act, prevents members of the Hindu Community from reclaiming those places of worship, which according to the Petitioners were Hindu places of worship but were allegedly, converted by Muslim invaders, it is apparent that the present petition seeks to indirectly target places of worship which are presently of Muslim character. In such circumstances, this Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to implead the Applicant Organization in the present petition as the Applicant Organization wishes to put forth the views of the Muslim Community.”

The direction this case would take has wide-ranging ramifications for many mosques, the most notable being the Gyanvyapi mosque in Varanasi.

The Gyanvyapi Mosque case

The Gyanvyapi mosque that is adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath temple has been in the eye of the storm with many right-wing organisations keen to turn it into an Ayodhya like dispute. After the conclusion of the Ayodhya case, many whatsapp messages were reportedly circulated containing names of mosques that had allegedly encroached upon temple premises, Gyanvyapi was allegedly on the top of most lists.

The Varanasi based temple and mosque share a common wall. It is alleged that Mughal emperor Aurangzeb had razed the temple in 1664 and the mosque was built on its ruins using the temple’s debris. Hostilities simmered over time and the dispute went to court when the title suit was filed in 1991. The two parties in this case were Kashi Vishwanath Mandir Trust (KVMT) and the Anjuman Intazamia Masjid (AIM). But back then, the Allahabad High Court had imposed a temporary stay on hearings in the case via an order dated October 13, 1998.

However, on February 4, 2020, a local court decided to commence hearings in the case stating that the HC’s order had not been extended within six months with a separate order, and that therefore the stay was deemed to have been vacated. This prompted the AIM to move HC against this decision. The HC then ordered that the stay be maintained and also invited members of the Bar to assist the court in the matter.

Meanwhile, the Sunni Waqf Board (SWB) had moved the Additional District Judge to be made party to the civil suit, a request that was turned down. This prompted them to also move Allahabad HC. In May this year the HC directed its registry to place two separate petitions related to the dispute, one by AIM and the other by the SWB, before an appropriate bench.

Related:

Gyanvyapi land dispute case: Allahabad HC stays Varanasi court’s order to commence hearing

The post Places of Worship Act case: Jamiat-Ulema-i-Hind moves SC, pleads to be made party appeared first on SabrangIndia.