Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

BREAKING: [Gyanvapi Dispute] Varanasi Court Dismisses Masjid Committee's Challenge To Maintainability Of Hindu Worshippers' Suit

Sparsh Upadhyay
12 Sep 2022 9:01 AM GMT
BREAKING: [Gyanvapi Dispute] Varanasi Court  Dismisses Masjid Committees Challenge To Maintainability Of Hindu Worshippers Suit
x

Varanasi Court today dismissed Anjuman Islamia Masjid committee's plea (filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) challenging the maintainability of the suit filed by five Hindu women (plaintiffs) seeking worshipping rights in the Gyanvapi Mosque compound. For a detailed report of today's order, click here.District Judge A. K. Vishveshva order rules that the suit filed by the Hindu Worshippers...

Varanasi Court today dismissed Anjuman Islamia Masjid committee's plea (filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) challenging the maintainability of the suit filed by five Hindu women (plaintiffs) seeking worshipping rights in the Gyanvapi Mosque compound. For a detailed report of today's order, click here.

District Judge A. K. Vishveshva order rules that the suit filed by the Hindu Worshippers is not barred by The Places of Worship Act or the Waqf Act. With this, the Anjuman Islamia Committee's challenge to the maintainability of the suit has been rejected. Now, the suit of the Hindu worshippers will be heard further by the Varanasi Court.

Complete details here: Hindu Deities Were Worshipped Inside Gyanvapi Mosque Complex Even After Aug 15, 1947; Places Of Worship Act No Bar To Suit: Varanasi Court

The plaintiffs (hindu women worshippers) have essentially sought a right to worship Maa Shringar Gauri on the outer wall of the mosque complex located next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple. The maintainability of that very suit had been challenged by the Anjuman Committee (which manages Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi) arguing that Hindu Worshippers' suit is barred by Law (Places of Worship Act, 1991).

Having heard the parties at length, District Judge A. K. Vishvesha last month completed the hearing and reserved its order 

The plaintiffs have claimed that the present Mosque premises was once a Hindu temple and it was demolished by Mughal Ruler Aurangzeb and thereafter, the present mosque structure was built there.

On the other hand, the Anjuman Masjid committee has argued in its objection and order 7 rule 11 CPC application that the suit is specifically barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

The background of the Case

The local court [presided by Varanasi civil judge (senior division) Ravi Kumar Diwakar] had earlier appointed a survey commission to submit a report by visiting the mosque. The Court had received the survey report on May 19.

However, even before the submission of the survey report, the Court, on a submission made by the court-appointed Advocate Commissioner that it had found Shiva Linga inside the Gyanvapi Mosque premises during the survey, had ordered to seal the spot.

"The District Magistrate, Varanasi is ordered to immediately seal the place where the Shiva linga is found and the entry of any person is prohibited in the sealed place," the court had ordered.

Meanwhile, a petition was filed by the Masjid Committee before the Supreme Court challenging the survey ordered by the Varanasi court.

Hearing the plea on May 17, the Supreme Court clarified that the order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division at Varanasi to protect the spot where a "shiv ling" was claimed to have been found during the survey of the Gyanvapi mosque will not restrict the right of Muslims to access the mosque to offer namaz and to perform religious observances.

Further, on May 20, the Supreme Court transferred the suit filed by Hindu devotees in connection with the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath Temple dispute to the District Court in Varanasi.

The Supreme Court also ordered that the application filed by the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid before the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the suit as being barred in law, shall be decided on priority by the District Judge.

Meanwhile, it was also ordered that its interim order dated May 17 shall continue in operation till the application is decided and for a period of 8 weeks thereafter. With this, a bench of Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice PS Narasimha adjourned the matter to October 20.

For a detailed report of today's order, click here.

Next Story