Gyanvapi | 'UP Govt's Action Of Stopping Worship Rituals Inside Vyas Tehkhana In 1993 Was Illegal', Says Allahabad High Court

In a significant observation, the Allahabad High Court today called the Uttar Pradesh Government's action of stopping worship rituals inside Vyas Tehkhana (located at the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi) in 1993 as ILLEGAL. The Court said that the worship rituals were stopped by "illegal action of State without there being any order in writing".

"The act of the State Government since the year 1993 restraining the Vyas family from performing religious worship and rituals and also by the devotees was a continuous wrong being perpetuated": a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal observed in his 54-page order which was released soon after the bench pronounced its verdict of dismissing Gyanvapi Mosque committee's appeal challenging the Varanasi Court's January 31 order allowing 'Puja' In 'Vyas Tehkhana' (southern cellar of Gyanvapi Mosque).

In its order, the Court also observed that stopping worship and performing rituals by the devotees in the cellar "would be against their interest". With this, the High Court has effectively upheld the order of District Judge Varanasi.

It may be noted that the 'Vyas tehkahana' is located in the southern section of the Gyanvapi mosque's enclosed complex. For over two centuries and till 1993, the Vyas family had been performing prayers and conducting various rituals within the tehkhana. However, the rituals were stopped in December 1993 by the State Government, then headed by CM Mulayam Singh Yadav of Samajwadi Party (who had formed the Government on December 4, 1993).

In its order, emphasizing that the rights guaranteed to citizens under Article 25 cannot be taken away by arbitrary action of the State, the Court asserted that the Vyas family's freedom to practice their religion, including conducting religious worship and rituals in their cellar, cannot be arbitrarily restricted by the government through oral orders. 

Importantly, the Court has also noted that the existence of Vyas Tehkhana (cellar) owned by the Vyas family in the year 1937 is a prima facie proof of the continued possession claimed by the plaintiff till the year 1993.

Against this backdrop, the Court concluded that Varanasi Court's January 31st order allowing worship and rituals in the cellar under the supervision of the Receiver appointed by the Court required no interference. 

The Court also rejected the argument raised by the Mosque Committee regarding a clash of interest between the office of the District Magistrate and the Receiver appointed by the Court.

The Court noted that the Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 provides that the District Magistrate, who, being the ex-officio Member of the Board of Trustees and also Member of the Executive Committee, is bound to act as per the duties of the Board and also to comply the directions of the Board and State Government being the Member of Executive Committee responsible for the superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of the Temple.

"Once, the District Magistrate, Varanasi is performing his duties enumerated under the Temple Act, 1983, his appointment as Receiver by the Court who has to act on the direction and supervision of the Court would not lead to any clash of interest," the Court added as it ruled that no malice in law or malice in fact can be imputed to the District Magistrate, Varanasi in the instant case.

Lastly, considering the overall submissions advanced by the respective counsel of the parties and after analysing the material on record, the Court concluded that the appellant (Mosque committee) failed to make out any case for interfering in the order dated January 17, 2024, and January 31, 2024, appointing the District Magistrate, Varanasi as Receiver and arranging to carry out worship and rituals in Vyas tehkhana (cellar) under his supervision by the priest, so appointed. 

Counsel for Appellant: Sr Counsel SFA Naqvi, Syed Ahmed Faizan, Zaheer Asghar

Counsel for Respondent: Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Prabhash Pandey, Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Vineet Sankalp

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 117