mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-bidi-font-weight:
bold"> Digital Desk: A district court ruled on Monday that a request by five
Hindu women seeking the right to offer daily prayers to idols placed inside the
Varanasi Gyanvapi Masjid complex is not prohibited by current law and should be
decided on its merits. This decision paved the way for a protracted and
contentious legal battle in the sensitive case involving the community.
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, which
oversees the 17th-century Gyanvapi mosque, filed a petition, but Varanasi
district judge AK Vishvesha dismissed it, claiming that the Hindu women's claim
could not stand since it violated the 1991 Places of Worship Act as well as two
other laws.
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">"I have come to the judgement that the
Waqf Act of 1995, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991, and
the U.P. do not preclude the plaintiffs' lawsuit. In a 26-page judgement, the
judge declared that the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act of 1983 and the
application 35C submitted by defendant no. 4 were likely to be rejected.
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">The court determined that the right to
practise one's religion is a civil right that is subject to civil court
jurisdiction. Furthermore, it emphasised that neither a title to the land nor a
determination that the subject property is a temple were sought by the Hindu
plaintiffs. It said, "The plaintiffs are asserting solely the right to
worship at the contested land.
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">The court set the next hearing date for
September 22, when the Hindu side's case will be heard on its merits. It's a
significant day for all Kashi inhabitants and sanatanis as well as for us
(traditionalists). We believed we would prevail. One of the five petitioners,
Rekha Pathak, expressed her confidence that members of the opposite community
will handle it politely.
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">According to the Muslim petitioners, they want
to go before the Allahabad high court. The high court move is always an option.
According to Mohammed Touhid Khan, one of the attorneys working on behalf of
the mosque committee, "our team of attorneys will first examine the
judgement, paying particular attention to the reasons why our request was
denied, and then move high court, contesting the district court's decision.
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">Hindu organisations celebrated even though the
Monday judgement merely addressed the initial question of the petition's
maintainability. In Varanasi, people passed out sweets, lit firecrackers, and
played drums on numerous streets and ghats. The initial obstacle has been
overcome, and the court will now hear the case on its own merits, according to
working president of Vishwa Hindu Parishad Alok Kumar.
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">The communally contentious case is still in
its early stages, and its resolution could have a significant impact on other
lawsuits that are currently pending before municipal courts in Mathura and
Agra. Hindu petitioners in all three petitions contend that Muslim buildings
from the Middle Ages were constructed by destroying Hindu temples, and they
demand the freedom to pray. According to the Muslim sides, any such legal
action breaches both property and religious regulations, particularly the 1991
Act, and they reject the claim.
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">The Gyanvapi issue dates back many years, but
in August of last year, five women petitioned a local court to be allowed to
freely worship at the Maa Shringar Gauri Sthal, which was inside the 1.5-acre
complex that held the idols of the Hindu gods Parvati, Hanuman, Kuber, Ganesha,
and Ganga. A contentious survey of the complex was mandated by the local court
in April of this year, which sparked immediate opposition. In May, the survey
was finally finished, but not before the Hindu side asserted that a shivling
had been discovered during the last few days of the exercise. While the Muslim
side was making its case that the discovered structure was a ceremonial
ablution fountain, the court erected a security perimeter around the entire
site. leaks of images and videos
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">The case eventually made it to the Supreme
Court, which on May 20 ordered the district court to first determine if the
suit brought by the Hindu ladies was maintainable before transferring it from
the Varanasi civil judge to the district judge. The top court, however, declined
to get involved in the case or to consider petitions that contested the survey.
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">Eventually, the case reached the Supreme
Court, which issued an order on May 20 directing the district court to first
establish if the Hindu women's suit was maintainable before moving it from the
Varanasi civil judge to the district judge. However, the Supreme court declined
to take on the issue or to take into account petitions that disputed the study.
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">"According to plaintiffs, they continued
to routinely worship Maa Sringar Gauri and Lord Hanuman at the disputed
location even after August 15th, 1947. Because of this, the judge concluded
that Section 9 of the Act and the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act,
1991 do not preclude the plaintiffs' lawsuit.
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">The 1985 Waqf Act was the second. The Muslim
side maintained that because the mosque was a Waqf property, the Central Waqf
Tribunal in Lucknow alone had the authority to settle any legal matters
pertaining to it. The petition was not legally barred, the court ruled, noting
that the petitioners were not Muslims and that the relief they requested—the
right to offer daily prayers at the location—was not covered by the Waqf Act.
It further ruled that when the location was designated as Waqf land, Hindu
petitioners were not given a chance to be heard.
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">The 1983 Sri Kashi Vishwanth Temple Act, which
controls the Kashi Vishwanath Temple, was the third (that adjoins the Gyanvapi
mosque and largely shares the same complex). The court ruled that there was no
prohibition against worshipping idols erected as "endowments" within
the temple compound. "It is evident that the Act has not placed any
restrictions on a lawsuit asserting the right to worship idols placed in the
endowment inside or outside the temple's grounds. As a result, the defendant
failed to establish that the 1983 UP Sri Kashi Vishwanth Temple Act bars the
plaintiffs' lawsuit, the judge ruled.
"Times New Roman";color:#424242">
The verdict from Monday clears the way for the Hindu women's
case to be heard. Even though the hearings are expected to draw attention from
all over the country, particularly from some Hindu groups wanting to reaffirm
their claims on Islamic monuments, every stage of the contentious case is
likely to be contested in the higher judiciary. A religious disagreement has
not generated such controversy since the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid title
litigation, which was finally resolved by the top court in a landmark ruling in
2019. With a significant police presence in Varanasi and the state capital,
Lucknow, the administration reinforced security across the state on Monday.
Leave A Comment