The case will now be heard by the Varanasi Civil Judge’s court, which has been directed “to proceed with the matter expeditiously and conclude the proceedings” within six months.
The Gyanvapi mosque abuts the Kashi Vishwanath temple.
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, in which the Archaeological Survey of India on Monday submitted a 1500-page report to the Varanasi district court.
What is the title suit of 1991?
This is the original title suit in the Gyanvapi issue filed on behalf of the deity Adi Vishweshwar, like in the Ayodhya case.
In 1995, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi, had framed eight key issues to be adjudicated in the plea. Among these was the crucial aspect of whether the suit would be barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. In a civil suit, averments made by the petitioners are to be prima facie accepted. The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) bars a strict scrutiny of the claims made in a plaint at the initial stage. Once the plea is accepted, only then petitioners are called upon to bring evidence to the table.
The only way to challenge a suit is under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, which provides for rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from statement to be barred by any law. If a Court decides that there is no bar under any law or by limitation (where time to file a suit has expired), then the Court has to hear the claims, however flimsy they might be.
The trial court initially decided that the suit was barred under the 1991 Act. However, the Hindu side filed a revision application, and the revisional court set aside the trial court order and directed that the suit had to be decided on merits.
On appeal, the Allahabad High Court on October 13, 1998 stayed the revision order and effectively the suit, which meant that the proceedings were stalled. This prompted the petitioners to file several new pleas in 2021 to revive their claim over the Gyanvapi mosque. These pleas have been filed on behalf of other deities, including Maa Shringar Gauri, seeking the right to worship.
How has the suit now been revived?
In 2018, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P Ltd Director Vs CBI held that the interim order of stay granted by courts other than the SC itself will stand vacated automatically after six months unless they are specifically extended.
The ruling was aimed at ensuring that criminal and civil trials are not unduly delayed due to an indefinite stay. This judgement is now being reconsidered by a larger five-judge Bench since several instances of miscarriage of justice have been noticed when the stay is automatically vacated.
Relying on this 2018 verdict, the Hindu side argued that the stay was not in operation and that the case must be heard again. This was challenged by the Muslim side before the High Court.
What are the claims in the 1991 petition?
The 1991 suit seeks 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 are the property of Lord Visheshwar and devotees.
Claiming that the Muslim community had illegally occupied the property, the plea said 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 said 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 existed at the site “prior to puranic period Swayambhu Jyotirlinga of Lord Shiva” — popularly known as Lord Vishweshwar — “much before the advent of Muslim Rule in India”.
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 said 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 said 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 said.
What is the Muslim side’s counter?
Lawyers appearing on behalf of the mosque committee and the Sunni Waqf Board said 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 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.
