Friends, in the last few days various media have been writing/talking about GYANVAPI case. The case is about Gyanvapi mosque located in Varanasi near Kashi Vishwanath temple. The first surprise to me was how can a mosque be named Gyanvapi, which is a pure Hindi word. According to available historical records, it was built on the orders of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb after destroying the original Kashi Vishwanath temple situated there.
Yesterday, The Allahabad High Court (HC) ruled that civil suits filed by Hindu worshippers and deities inter alia seeking restoration of the temple on mosque premises are not barred by the Places of Worship Act. Notably, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 prohibits the conversion of a religious structure from its nature as it stood on 15th August 1947, the date of independence. Further, the HC said that the Gyanvapi compound can have either a Muslim character or a Hindu character and directed the trial court to expeditiously decide suit in 6 months. Further, the HC allowed the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to continue the survey of the mosque. If the lower court feels that a survey of any part is necessary, the court may direct ASI to conduct the survey.
The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee (AIMC) of Gyanvapi mosque located adjacent to Kashi Vihwanath temple at Varanasi, had challenged the maintainability of a suit filed before a Varanasi Court, wherein the Hindu petitioners have sought restoration of the temple at the site where the Gyanvapi mosque presently exist. AIMC and Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board had also challenged a Varanasi court order of 8th August 2021, to conduct a comprehensive survey of Gyanvapi mosque.
The ASI carried out a specific survey of Gyanvapi premises to determine whether the mosque was constructed over the pre-existing structure of the Hindu temple. The survey was carried out on the direction of the district court’s July 21 order that mentioned the need to survey beneath the mosque’s domes, the cellars, and the western wall. It said that the ASI should also examine the plinth and pillars to determine the age and nature of the building. This decision was upheld by the HC, which ruled that step was ‘necessary in the interest of justice’, and would benefit both the Hindu and Muslim sides in the dispute.
In reality, this battle has been going on for more than the last three decades. Case No. 1 on this matter was filed in Oct 1991 before the civil judge in Varanasi. In 1997 the Civil Court said that the suit was not maintainable under the Places of Worship Act 1991. Both the temple and mosque sides filed several revision petitions before the district court. In Sept 1998, the Dist Judge merged all the pleas and ordered the civil court to adjudicate the dispute afresh after considering all the evidence. In Oct 1998, the HC stayed the Varanasi district court order. The stay continued for 22 years which continued.
In Jan 2020, the plaintiffs again approached the Varanasi civil court to reopen the case which had been stayed by the HC in Oct 1998. They cited an SC order which said that a stay order has to be rectified every six months. Since this was not done, the civil court agreed to open the case.
There were two more similar cases.
In one case 5 women plaintiffs approached a civil judge (sr division) with their plea to allow them to worship the idols of Shringar Gauri and other visible and invisible deities on the outer wall of Gyanvapi mosque. Here civil judge ordered a court-mandated survey of Gyanvapi premises. AIMC challenged this order in the HC, which was dismissed. On May 16, 2022, the survey team claimed to have discovered ‘Shivling’ in the middle of the abulation pond of the Gyanvapi complex. As per the order of the civil judge, this wuzu area was sealed. On May 20, 2022, SC ordered the status quo at Gyanvapi and full protection of the pond area. In Sept 2022, the district judge said that the plea of 5 women plaintiffs was maintainable.
The Present Case
On 16th May 2023, the four plaintiffs of the Shringar Gauri case applied to the district judge seeking an ASI survey of the Gyanvapi complex excluding the wuzu pond area, which had been sealed by the order of the SC. On 20th July 2023, the judge ordered the ASI survey because it wouldn’t violate the SC order and would decide the plaintiff’s prayer to find out whether the mosque was built on a pre-existing temple On 23rd July the AIMC filed a contempt plea in the SC. On 24th July ASI survey began but halted after 4 hours as SC stayed it and asked AIMC to move the HC. On 3rd August the HC upheld the district judge’s order, allowing ASI survey of Gyanvapi mosque.
The AIMC had challenged the maintainability of this suit, for which the HC gave its ruling yesterday.
I won’t be surprised now if the AIMC again approached the SC against this ruling of the HC.
I sometimes wonder about the delay of these types of cases, earlier the Babri Masjid issue took more than six decades, and this case has taken more than 3 decades to come to this stage, and we do not know when the final judgment will come.
In the end, this is the irony of the Indian Judicial System.
Waiting for your views on this blog.
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
20th December 2023.
Friends, this is my 200th Blog of the year 2023.