JOIN USGyanvapi Mosque case: What happens next?
In simple terms, this means that the court will continue to hear the matter concerning the Places of Worship Act. District Judge Ajay Krishna Vishwesh rejected the objections filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee and posted the matter for further hearing on Sept. 22.
BJP leaders rejoiced and welcomed the order, calling it a "triumph of truth" even as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad said that the battle was only beginning.
What happens next?
Judge Vishwesh, while dismissing the plea from Muslims, directed both sides to frame the issues and questions of the law that will come up in the main suit. This means that both sides will file submissions that will include arguments and related legal precedents in the case.
The Muslim side, for their part, said they would approach higher courts on the matter. The options before them are to go to the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court of India. The apex court is already scheduled to hear the matter next month.
What’s the gist of the case?
The Gyanvapi premises has been a bone of contention between the two communities for several decades. After the favourable decision of the apex court in the Ram Temple case in 2019, there has been a renewed clamour by saffron outfits to "take back" the Kashi Vishwanath Temple premises.
The Hindu petitioners contended that a part of the temple had been demolished by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in the 17th century. The Muslim side said that the mosque existed before Aurangzeb's reign and said that the same had been mentioned in land records.
In April, a Varanasi court ordered a video survey of the Gyanvapi mosque complex after the aforementioned petition from the women, which was concluded in May. The Hindu side in the matter then said that a 'Shivling' was found during the survey inside a reservoir on the mosque complex. The Muslim side, however, dismissed the claim and said that it was only a fountain.
Where does Places of Worship Act come in?
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board had termed the court order for videography as a "clear violation" of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which seeks to maintain the status quo of 1947 on all places of worship. The Act has been in force since July 11, 1991.
The mosque committee's plea argued that the fresh suits filed in 2021 citing the "right to worship" were barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991, and were an attempt to revive a dispute that had been laid to rest by the law. The court, in this regard, said, "From the perusal of the above-mentioned provisions of the Act, it is clear that no bar has been imposed by the Act regarding a suit claiming the right to worship idols installed in the endowment within the premises of the temple, or outside."
The court explained that the petitioners had only sought the right to worship at the temple and not to convert the mosque into a temple. It said that the deities were being worshipped regularly until 1993 and were worshipped only once a year after that.