LUCKNOW: Reactions were on expected lines on Monday to the Varanasi district court’s order agreeing to hear the case of five Hindu women to pray at a shrine inside the Gyanvapi mosque, located near the Kashi Vishwanath temple.
The lawyers belonging to the Hindu side called the court order a “major victory”. The court rejected the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid (AIM) plea, prompting it to announce that it would move the Allahabad High Court against the order.
Lawyers Vishnu Jain and Harishankar Jain, who represented the Hindu plaintiffs in the legal battle, said the court found that the Places of Worship Act 1991 was not applicable to this case.
The Act prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship since it existed on August 15, 1947.
The Muslim side felt that the court order was not justified. Senior advocate Merazuddin Siddiqui, who was among the lawyers representing the AIM, said the mosque management committee would move the higher court challenging the district court’s order.
“Judge Saheb might not have found Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 applicable here, but for us, the doors of higher courts are always open. The judiciary belongs to you (the judge), so you can ignore the Acts passed by Parliament,” said the lawyer.
“We will discuss the 26-page order in detail, but it is certain that we will file a revision petition in the Allahabad High Court against it as all our arguments to prove the applicability of the Act have been overlooked,” said Siddiqui.
He specifically mentioned the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (Act no.42 of 1991), The Wakf Act 1995 (Act no.43 of 1995) and the UP Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Act no.29 of 1983).
Over the previous attempt to move the Allahabad High Court in April this year, he said, “We had moved the HC to challenge the appointment of advocate commissioner for court commission survey of Gyanvapi mosque by the civil judge (senior division). Our plea was not accepted.”
Many Muslim scholars and clerics believe that the Varanasi District Court had disregarded the AIM’s arguments based on the Places of Worship (special Provision) Act, 1991.
Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali, the executive member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), said that following the Supreme Court observation during the Babri Masjid hearing, it was widely believed that all such matters related to temple-mosque issues would be put to rest forever.
“However, these cases have been cropping up every now and then and the courts were entertaining them as well,” the cleric said.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Monday termed the development "disappointing", and urged the government to implement the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, with full force.
The Varanasi district court on Monday said it will continue to hear a petition seeking daily worship of Hindu deities whose idols are located on an outer wall of the Gyanvapi Masjid, dismissing the mosque committee's argument that the case is not maintainable.
In a statement, AIMPLB General Secretary Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani said the preliminary decision of the district judge's court was "disappointing and saddening".
Rahmani said in the midst of the Babri Masjid controversy in 1991, Parliament had approved that the status quo at all religious places, except the Babri Masjid, would be maintained as in 1947, and no dispute against it would be valid.
Then in the Babri Masjid case, the Supreme Court upheld the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and declared it mandatory, he pointed out.
"But in spite of this, those who want to serve hatred and who do not care about the unity of this country, raised the issue of Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi and it is a pity that the district judge's court ignored the 1991 law and allowed the petition," Rahmani said.
"Now, this sad phase has come where the court has initially accepted the claim of Hindu groups and has paved the way for them. It is a painful thing for the country and the people," he said.
This will affect the unity of the country and harm communal harmony, Rahmani said.
The government should implement the 1991 law with full force, all the parties should be made bound to this law and a situation should not arise wherein the minorities get frustrated with the justice system and feel all the doors of justice are closed for them, he said in a statement.
District Judge A K Vishvesh rejected the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee's petition questioning the maintainability of the case, which has reignited the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi Masjid dispute.
Separately, the Allahabad High Court which is hearing another case dating back to 1991 on the temple-mosque dispute on Monday fixed September 28 for its next hearing.
The mosque is located next to the iconic temple and the case in the Varanasi court revived claims that the mosque was built on a portion of the Hindu structure demolished on the orders of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.
The Supreme Court had directed the district court to first decide on the maintainability of the case, filed by five Hindu women seeking permission to offer daily prayers before the idols of Shringar Gauri.
The mosque committee had approached the apex court, arguing that their plea was not maintainable as the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, mandated that the character of such places should remain as it was at Independence.
The 1991 law made an exemption only for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute.
The Varanasi district court has now said the 1991 Act does not apply in this case --- where the devotees are seeking permission for daily worship of the idols they say are already installed there.
Already, they are allowed to offer prayers there once a year, their lawyers had argued.
The Allahabad High Court on Monday fixed September 28 as the next date of hearing in a case pertaining to a petition filed by Anjuman Intezamia Masjid of Varanasi challenging the maintainability of an original suit filed in 1991 in the Varanasi district court.
The original suit has sought the restoration of the ancient Kashi Vishwanath temple at the site where the Gyanvapi mosque currently stands.
The petitioners claimed in the suit that the mosque is a part of the temple.
On August 30 this year, the high court had extended the interim stay till September 30 on a Varanasi court order directing the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a physical survey at the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque complex and further proceedings in this case.
The high court on September 9, 2021, stayed the Varanasi court's order dated April 8, 2021.
The Vishva Hindu Parishad on Monday termed the Varanasi district court order in the Gyanvapi mosque lawsuit as "very satisfactory", while stressing that it is not about victory or defeat and should be accepted with "grace and calmness".
The legal battle in the matter has crossed its "first hurdle" with the court's decision, VHP working president Alok Kumar said.
The reaction of the right wing Hindu outfit came after the Varanasi district court rejected the plea questioning the maintainability of a petition seeking permission for daily worship of Hindu deities whose idols are located on an outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque.
District Judge A K Vishvesh held that the court would continue to hear the petition seeking the right to offer prayers there.
The court fixed September 22 as the next date of hearing in the case.
"The Varanasi court's decision is very satisfactory. The first hurdle has been crossed. The Varanasi court has decided that the Varanasi suit is not injuncted by the Places of Worship Act. The application of the other party has been dismissed," Kumar said in a video message.
The court will now examine the matter on its merits, he noted.
"We do hope and look forward to a victory. The truth is with us," he said.
Kumar said the court's decision should be accepted with "grace and calmness and it should not be interpreted in terms of victory or defeat.
"This a religious and spiritual matter," he stressed.
Five women had filed the petition seeking permission for daily worship of Hindu deities whose idols are claimed to be located on an outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque.
The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee has said the Gyanvapi mosque is a Waqf property and has questioned the maintainability of the plea.
The district judge had last month reserved the order till September 12 in the communally sensitive matter.
(With PTI Inputs)
