Allahabad High Court Dismisses As Withdrawn PIL Seeking Sealing Of Gyanvapi Mosque Premises, Ban On Entry Of Non-Hindus

The PIL plea, which also sought a ban on entry of non-Hindus at the disputed site, had been moved by Chief of the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh (VVSS), Jitendra Singh Visen, Rakhi Singh (Plaintiff no. 1 in the Shringar Gauri Worshipping suit 2022) and others through Advocate Saurabh Tiwary.

When the matter came up for hearing before a bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, the CJ asked the petitioners' counsel as to how the Court could prohibit the entry of Non-Hindus into the temple. He also inquired from the Counsel as to how he could say that only non-Hindus would damage the Hindu signs and symbols.

The bench also said that the reliefs claimed in the PIL plea could very well be claimed in the suit itself which is pending before the Varanasi Court.

To this, the counsel for the petitioners said that the Prayers are different in the plaint (before the Varanasi Court) and in the PIL plea. It was also argued that in the Plaint, only a right to pray has been sought and in the instant PIL plea, protection of the artefacts related to Hindus is being sought.

However, Justice Srivastava remarked that since the petitioners are already availing of a remedy before the District Court, they can amend the plaint there, and can file for injunction there.

Further, when the petitioners' counsel claimed that the Hindu structure was being damaged at the disputed site, the Court wondered how could the damage be caused when everything was being recorded and photographs were being taken of whatever artefacts were found.

"How can you say anything will be damaged or the records/ history will vanish?," Justice Srivastava remarked.

During the course of the hearing, the petitioners' counsel kept on insisting that there were photographs attached that someone was destroying the artefacts related to the Hindus, inside the mosque premises, however, the Counsel, despite the query of the Court, did not divulge details as to who was sending him photos, etc.

Further taking into account the submissions of the AAG Manish Goyal that the Court orders are being followed, the Court found no merits in the PIL plea and asked the Counsel for the petitioners to either withdraw the petition or get an order on merits. In view of this, the Counsel decided to withdraw it and hence, the PIL plea was dismissed as withdrawn.

The averments made in the PIL plea

The PIL Plea, moved last week, stated that the petitioners intended to "save the centuries-old remains of Sri Adi Vishweshwar temple (present Gyanvapi Mosque) in Varanasi" and they seek "protection of Shivlingam of Sri Adi Vishweshwar Virazmaan and other visible and invisible deities in the precinct of the temple".

Significantly, the PIL plea claimed that at the disputed site (settlement Plot No. 9130 Ward and PS- Dashaswamedh, District Varanasi), a magnificent temple used to exist, wherein Lord Shiva, the Lord of Universe, himself established the "Jyotirlinga" lakhs of years ago, however, the said temple was damaged/destroyed in the year 1669 by "cruel Islamic" ruler Aurangzeb.

The PIL plea further stated that after destroying the said temple, Muslims unauthorizedly encroached into the temple premises and put a super structure which they call the "alleged Gyanwapi Mosque" even though the property was vesting in the deity and the same was not and could not be a Waqf Property.

"The original Jyotirlinga lies beneath the superstructure illegally and unauthorizedly raised by Muslims within the old temple complex (presently Gyanvapi Mosque). The Hindu devotees are not being allowed to have darshan of the deity within old temple complex. The right of the petitioner(s) and devotees in general to worship within the old temple complex guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution Of India is being continuously infringed. The pooja and worship being performed by the Petitioner(s) and devotees remain incomplete without having darshan of Sri Adi Vishweshwara Jyotirlinga," the PIL plea avers.

It further contended that the disputed property has been vesting in the Deity since time immemorial and if any person or persons forcibly and without authority of law offer namaz within that property or at a particular place, the same cannot be called as mosque.

The petitioners also claimed that devotes like them have a right to worship Goddess Maa Srinagar Gauri at the asthan of Lord Adi Vishweshwar along with Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman, Nandiji and other visible and invisible Deities within the old temple complex/disputed property.

Further, the PIL plea referred to certain pieces of evidence, sign/symbols on walls, and pillars inside the Gyanvapi Mosque premises to argue that same are part of the old Hindu Temple and that the present structure is standing on the plinth and base of the old temple structure.

Read more about the PIL Plea here: PIL In Allahabad HC Seeks Sealing Of Entire Gyanvapi Mosque Premises Sans Affecting ASI Survey, Ban On Entry Of Non-Hindus

In related news, on August 4, the Supreme Court refused to stop the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) from carrying out a survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque at Varanasi, except the 'wuzukhana' area where a 'shivling' was claimed to have been found last year.

Taking on record an undertaking made on behalf of the ASI that no excavation will be done at the site and no damage will be caused to the structure, the Court allowed the survey to take place.

The Court ordered thus while disposing of a petition filed by Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee (which manages the Gyanvapi Mosque at Varanasi) challenging Allahabad High Court order (of August 3) which permitted the ASI survey.

On July 21, Varanasi District Judge directed the Director of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a “scientific survey” of the Gyanvapi mosque premises except for the area that was sealed earlier (wuzukhana) to find out if the same has been built over a pre-existing structure of a Hindu temple. This order was upheld by the Allahabad HC on August 3.

Case title - Jitendra Singh Visen and Others vs. State of UP and Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 251 [PIL- 1776/2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 251