Allahabad HC rejects Muslim side’s plea in 32-year-old Gyanvapi case: What was this petition, what court said

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday (December 19) dismissed five petitions filed by the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Gyanvapi mosque committee, holding that a suit filed in 1991 over the Varanasi mosque is not barred under provisions of the Places of Worship Act.

The Waqf Board and the Gyanvapi mosque committee had challenged the maintainability of the original suit — Ancient Idol of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar and others vs. Anjuman Intezamia Masajid and another — filed in 1991, saying it was barred by the Places of Worship Act. This suit is different from the case filed by Rakhi Singh and others, under which the Archaeological Survey of India on Monday submitted a 1500-page report to the Varanasi district court.

Also in Explained | A short history of the Krishna Janmasthan temple in Mathura

What is the original suit of 1991?

In the 1991 title suit, filed in a Varanasi court, it was prayed before the court to pass an order that the “structure” (mosque) on top of the cellars (taikhana), the adjoining part of the “old temple” of Lord Vishweshwar, and some other structures, is the property of Lord Visheshwar and devotees.

Claiming that the Muslim community had illegally occupied the property, the plea says that Hindus have every right to use it as a place of worship and to renovate and reconstruct their temple. It also said that the defendants (Waqf Board and Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee) have no right, title or interest or any kind whatsoever and the entire Muslim community represented by the defendants have no right to occupy the structure.

The 1991 suit had also asked the court to pass an order directing the defendants “to remove its effects” from the said property and hand over possession “over the said structures to the plaintiffs”.

It also says that “the entire property of the Gyanvapi compound forming settlement Plot No. 9130, 9131 and 9132 measuring 1 Bigha, 9 Biswa and 6 Dhoor is surrounded by old boundary wall containing ancient temple of Lord Vishweshwar together with four Mandaps and its ruins Gyankoop, Mukti Mandap”.

It was stated that “there exists prior to puranic period Swayambhu Jyotirlinga of Lord Shiva” — popularly known as Lord Vishweshwar — which has been in existence “much before the advent of Muslim Rule in India”. The plaint also says that “land pertinent to the temple is mainly used for parikrama and worship of idol”.

As per the plea, the “temple was constructed by King Vikramaditya about 2050 years ago and duly consecrated the idol of Lord Vishweshwar therein”. It says that due to religious antipathy it was pulled down several times during Muslim Rule in the country.

It also said that besides the original temple of Lord Vishweshwar, there are four mandaps around the temple known as Mukti Mandap, Gyan Mandap, Aishwarya Mandap and Shringar Mandap.

The plaint in the suit also says that in 1669 AD, “on a wrong information reaching Emperor Aurangzeb, he ordered for demolition of such schools and temples of infidels (kafirs)”. “The aforesaid event of demolition has been mentioned in “Ma-Asir-iAlamgiri” printed in Arabic in 1871 by Asiatic Society of Bengal,” the plaint says.

The counter from the Muslim side

Lawyers appearing on behalf of the mosque committee and the Sunni Waqf Board say that the petitioners “have every right to offer their prayer in temple in question and are neither debarred nor anybody has stopped them to perform religious rites inside the temple”.

As per the lawyers, the Places of Worship Act, 1991 was promulgated with “purpose to foreclose any controversy in respect of any places of worship”. “It was an Act made by Parliament under constitutional mechanism and operates within the four corners of Constitution of India,” Senior Advocate SFA Naqvi submitted in court.

“As the Mosque stands on Plot No. 9130 and is being used by Muslims to offer Namaz since 15th August 1947, religious character cannot change, and it cannot be converted into a temple which is against the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1991,” Naqvi told the court.

What is the Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

The Muslim side relied on the Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from statement to be barred by any law.

What does the Places of Worship Act, 1991 say?

The Places of Worship Act states that the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, must be maintained.

The long title describes it as “An Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

Section 3 of the Act 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.

What is the status of the original suit of 1991?

The original suit was filed in 1991 in a Varanasi civil court. The case had reached the Allahabad High Court in 1998, which stayed proceedings in the matter that year. Since then, no order was passed in the case till Tuesday.

The case will now be heard by the Varanasi Civil Judge’s court, which has been directed by the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday “to proceed with the matter expeditiously and conclude the proceedings” within six months.

For the latest news from across India, Political updates, Explainers, Sports News, Opinion, Entertainment Updates and more Top News, visit Indian Express. Subscribe to our award-winning Newsletter Download our App here Android & iOS