Junk Gyanvapi survey, say Muslim petitioners
Initiating its arguments against the maintainability of the suit filed by five Hindu women, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, which manages the mosque, emphasised on how the petition cannot pass the muster of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) since it is barred by the Places of Worship Act,1991.
The suit filed by the Hindu petitioners for unhindered right to worship inside the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi complex must be dismissed right away without going into the survey report of the mosque, the Gyanvapi mosque management committee urged the Varanasi district court on Thursday.
Initiating its arguments against the maintainability of the suit filed by five Hindu women, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, which manages the mosque, emphasised on how the petition cannot pass the muster of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) since it is barred by the Places of Worship Act,1991.
The thrust of the contentions on behalf of the mosque management committee remained that the 1991 Act locks the position or “religious identity” of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and therefore, no plaint or suit can now seek to alter the religious character of the Gyanvapi mosque.
Representing the Muslim side, Abhay Nath Yadav argued before district judge AK Vishvesha that the suit should be junked straight away since the prayers in the case are barred by the 1991 legislation and thus, cannot be granted by the court.
According to lawyers present during the arguments, Yadav read out some of the pages of the suit filed by the Hindu petitioners while simultaneously raising objections to the prayers.
Following Yadav’s arguments for almost two hours, the district court adjourned the hearing to May 30 for further arguments.
The outcome of the proceedings will decide whether the suit, which led to the survey, could be entertained at all, and if the 1991 Places of Worship Act bars attempts to renew demands by a group for ascertaining religious character of a place all over again — a foundational argument raised by the committee. The decision of the Varanasi district court regarding applicability of the Act in such situations may also have ramifications for other similar disputes.
By an order on Tuesday, the district court decided to first examine the mosque management’s plea for rejection of the suit, as dictated by the May 20 Supreme Court order. The apex court had ordered that a decision be made on priority over the committee’s application against the maintainability of the suit. The Hindu side’s plea related to a controversial survey of the complex will be heard later.
In its order on Tuesday, the district judge further permitted the limited plea of the Hindu petitioners to invite objections and comments to the advocate commissioner’s report on the survey. During the survey, Hindu petitioners claimed a “Shivling” was found on the premises, prompting Varanasi’s civil court to order protection. Leaked details of the survey report, which was submitted to the court last week, said signs of Hindu relics and motifs were also found inside the premises.
When contacted, Yadav said that the mosque management committee has pressed that the suit is liable to be dismissed without looking at any other evidence. “This is what we urged by filing and arguing the plea under Order VII Rule 11,” he said.
Sudhir Tripathi, one of the advocates for the Hindu petitioners, said: “We have many arguments to prove that the suit is maintainable. We will present our arguments in the court after the arguments of the other side are over.”
Special advocate commissioner Vishal Singh also remained present inside the courtroom during the proceedings.
Vishnu Jain, advocate for the Hindu side, said on Thursday, “The Shivling which was found in the Gyanvapi Masjid complex was in custody of the Muslim side. They had tampered with the Shivling, which was clearly evident. We will raise the issue in the court.”
Jain said the Muslim side presented its side on Thursday. “We will get photos from the videography survey and the copy of the CD tomorrow (Friday),” Jain said. The Muslim side said the allegation of tampering with the claimed “Shivling” was completely false and was just aimed to incite passions.
The Supreme Court on Friday last refrained from interfering with the survey, but transferred the suit from the Varanasi civil judge to the district judge for deciding the mosque management committee’s objections against the inquiry. It noted the “complexities and sensitivities involved in the matter” will require a “more senior and experienced hand”.
A bench, headed by justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, asked the district judge to decide all relevant issues raised by the two sides. It said the district judge shall decide on priority the application of the committee, which claims that the case of the Hindu petitioners is barred by the Places of Worship Act.
The Supreme Court clarified its May 17 order on protecting a section of the masjid complex where a “Shivling” was ostensibly found shall continue. It directed Muslims will have the right to offer namaz in the mosque without any hindrance. The top court asked the Varanasi district magistrate to ensure arrangements for ablution for Muslims, but did not entertain a plea of the committee to allow it to use the pond or the tap located close to the protected site.
The Supreme Court adjourned the case to the third week of July. It said its May 17 order will remain operational until the district judge’s decision on the maintainability of the suit, and for a further period of eight weeks so that parties aggrieved could challenge it in appeal.
The apex court, on Friday last, also observed that ascertainment of the religious character of a place may not be barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
(With agency inputs)
