What is the Legality of Gyanvapi Mosque Case?

Introduction:

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal of the Allahabad High Court, presiding over a bench, dismissed five petitions filed by the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Gyanvapi Mosque Committee. These petitions contested the suits filed by Hindu devotees seeking permission to worship in the Gyanvapi Mosque, arguing that the 1991 case related to the Varanasi Mosque should not be allowed under the Places of Worship Act, 1991…Read more

Court Decision and Instructions:

The court ruled that the Varanasi Civil Judge’s court would take up the case and directed it to expedite the proceedings, aiming to conclude them within six months.

Timeline of Gyanvapi Case:

Historical Background:

The Gyanvapi Mosque is believed to have been constructed in 1669 by Mughal ruler Aurangzeb, who reportedly demolished the ancient Vishweshwar temple.

1991 Dispute:

The legal dispute over the Gyanvapi mosque began in 1991 when individuals, including Pandit Somnath Vyas, filed a suit in Varanasi claiming that Aurangzeb had destroyed the original Kashi Vishwanath temple.

1998 Lower Court Decision:

In 1998, the lower court rejected the challenge by the mosque’s Management Committee, which argued against the petition, citing the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

2019 Development:

Following the 2019 judgment in M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors., a new request for an archaeological examination of the Gyanvapi mosque’s history was made at a Varanasi Civil Court.

2020 Proceedings Stayed:

The Allahabad High Court stayed the proceedings in February 2020.

2021 and Legal Developments:

In 2021, a Varanasi court permitted Hindu women to worship in the mosque, considering their historical worship practices before August 15, 1947, making the Places of Worship Act, 1991, inapplicable to them.

ASI Survey:

A Varanasi Court allowed an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey, initially stayed by the Supreme Court but later resumed by the Allahabad High Court in 2023.

Court’s Conclusion:

The High Court determined that the suit filed in 1991 is not barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991, and cannot be rejected under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court emphasized the need for a speedy trial and instructed the trial court not to grant unnecessary adjournments. Additionally, the ASI was directed to submit a comprehensive report, and further surveys were to be conducted if deemed necessary based on the 2021 order.