A Varanasi Court on Monday, 12 September, held that a suit filed by five Hindu women seeking permission to perform daily worship of the Hindu deities whose idols are said to be located on an outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque was maintainable.
The court further held that the case was not barred by The Places of Worship Act or the Waqf Act, and listed the matter for further hearing on 22 September.
District Judge AK Vishvesh passed the order on the maintainability of the plea and rejected the Order 7 Rule 11 application of Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee.
The Anjuman Committee, had said the Gyanvapi mosque is a Waqf property and had challenging the maintainability of the plea on the ground that The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act ,1991 expressly bars conversion of any place of worship into anything different from the religious character of the place as it was on 15 August 1947 (with the exception of the Ayodhya dispute),
The communally sensitive case was heard by the district court following a court order by the Supreme Court.
What Did the Varanasi Court Say?
The court, in its order, noted that the plaintiffs had claimed that they were worshipping Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman, and Lord Ganesh at the disputed place incessantly since a long time till 1993 and after 1993, they were allowed to worship the above-mentioned Gods only once a year, under the regulations of the state of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, the court said:
"Thus, according to plaintiffs, they worshipped Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman at the disputed place regularly even after 15th August, 1947. Therefore, The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not operate as bar on the suit of the plaintiffs and the suit of plaintiffs is not barred by Section 9 of the Act."
The court further stated that the petitioners are "only demanding right to worship Maa Sringar Gauri and other visible and invisible deities which were being worshipped incessantly till 1993 and after 1993 till now once a year" and that they are not claiming ownership of the disputed property.
"Therefore, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not operate as the bar on the suit of plaintiffs. The suit of the plaintiffs is limited and confined to the right of worship as a civil right and fundamental right as well as customary and religious right."Varanasi district court
Further the court held that for the purpose of immunity from acquisition by the State in an exercise of the Sovereign power, a mosque's "status and immunity from acquisition in the secular ethos of India under the Constitution is the same and equal to that of the places of worship of the other religions."
"Obviously, the acquisition of any religious place is to be made only in unusual and extraordinary situations for a larger national purpose keeping in view that such acquisition should not result in extinction of the right to practise the religion, if the significance of that place be such. Subject to this condition, the power of acquisition is available for a mosque like any other place of worship of any religion," the court added.
The judge also noted that the destruction of the idol does not result in the termination of the pious purpose and consequently the endowment.
Earlier on Monday morning, advocate VS Jain was quoted by ANI as saying:
"If the judgment comes in our favour, then we will seek an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey, carbon dating of the Shivling (that was allegedly indicated to have been found in the mosque premises)."
What Had the Supreme Court Said?
The Supreme Court, on 21 July, had refused to hear a petition by the Hindu parties asking for the carbon dating of the alleged 'Shivling' found on the premises of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and had directed them to withdraw their plea and follow through with their suit in the district court asking for rights to pray there.
The apex court had also deferred hearing the main case relating to the Gyanvapi mosque that was before them – the masjid committee's challenge to the orders of the civil judge appointing a survey commission and then sealing part of the mosque based on the claims about the alleged 'Shivling'.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and PS Narasimha had stated that they would only take up this matter after the district court makes a decision on the Order 7 Rule 11 application filed by the masjid committee against the suit by the Hindu side.
Video Survey of the Mosque
Before the apex court's order, a lower court had ordered a video survey of the complex. The survey work was completed on 16 May and the report was presented in the court on 19 May.
The supposed details of the report were controversially revealed.
Following the 'leak', the Hindu side had claimed in the lower court that a Shivling was found during the survey of the Gyanvapi mosque-Shringar Gauri complex but it was contested by the Muslim side who said that it was part of the wazukhana fountain.
Security Tightened in Varanasi
Meanwhile, prohibitory orders (Section 144) were clamped and security was tightened in Varanasi ahead of the district court order on Monday.
News agency ANI quoted Santosh Kumar Singh, ACP, Varanasi, as saying, "More than 2,000 police personnel have been deployed. All necessary arrangements have been made to maintain law and order. Peace Committee meetings have been held several times and police is on alert."
Police Commissioner A Satish Ganesh, on Sunday, said that prohibitory orders have been issued in the Varanasi commissionerate and officers have been asked to interact with religious leaders in their respective areas to ensure that peace is maintained.
(With inputs from Live Law and ANI.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)