Gyanvapi | 'Merely Seeking Right To Worship Hindu Deities Doesn't Change Mosque's Character Into A Temple': Allahabad HC Rejects Masjid Committee's Plea

While dismissing the revision plea moved by the Gyanvapi Mosque Committee challenging a Varanasi Court order rejecting its objection to 5 Hindu Women Worshippers suit, the Allahabad High Court yesterday observed that mere asking to enforce a right to worship Maa Srinagar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman and the other Deities, (located inside Mosque Premises) is not an act that changes the character of the Gyanvapi Mosque into a temple

In its order, which was made public this evening, the bench of Justice JJ Munir that the suit filed by the plaintiffs (5 Hindu Women) before the Varanasi Court seeking a right to worship Maa Shringar Gauri and other deities on the outer wall of the mosque complex, does not wish to bring about any change to the (Gyanvapi Mosque premises) or alter its character. 

To arrive at this conclusion, the Court perused the plaint, particularly the relief clause and the material averments to note that the suit asserts the existence of a right to worship on a daily basis to do pooja and darshan of the Deities, that was exercised by Hindus in general, without hitch until the year 1990.

BREAKING: #GYANVAPI "...mere asking to enforce a right to worship Maa Srinagar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman and the other Deities, (located inside Mosque Premises) is not an act that changes the character of the Gyanvapi Mosque into a temple", says Allahabad High Court. pic.twitter.com/oMej3L1LzI

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 1, 2023

The Court made this observation in response to the argument of the Anjuman Intazamia Mosque Committee (which manages the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi) that by seeking worshipping rights by way of a suit filed by 5 Hindu Women worshippers, they want to alter the character of the Gyanvapi Mosque. 

The Court added that the suit seeks to enforce a subsisting right of worship which they have been exercising after 15th August 1947 and that it is not the case of the plaintiffs, that they, in any manner, wish to bring about any change to the suit property or alter its character, which is barred as per the Places of Worship Act of 1991.

The Court noted that the right to worship deities was being exercised all through the year beyond 15th August 1947 and as late as in the year 1993, and hence, the enforcement of the right to worship deities throughout the year does not attract the bar under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1991.

"The fact that they have a right to do darshan and pooja of Goddess Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman and the other Deities in the suit property throughout the year is what devotees like the plaintiffs were doing, as already remarked, up to the year 1990 and are now doing on a single day of the year. This Court fails to see that if the plaintiffs or devotees like them can do pooja and darshan of the Deities on a single day in the year with no threat to the mosque's character, how the making of it a daily or a weekly affair, would lead to a conversion or change of the mosque's character. It may require some arrangements to be made by the local administration, and may be, also by the Government by way of some regulation, but that is not the concern of the law."

With this, the bench upheld the September 12, 2022 order of the Varanasi Court holding the said suit to be maintainable. 

Read more about the Varanasi Court's order here: Plaint Avers Hindu Deities Were Worshipped Inside Gyanvapi Mosque Complex Even After Aug 15, 1947; Places Of Worship Act No Bar To Suit: Varanasi Court

Further, the Court also rejected the objection raised by the Masjid Committee on the ground of limitation by noting that it is a flawed premise to assume that what the plaintiffs seek to enforce is a religious community right of the Hindus, instead, the plaintiffs seek to enforce their individual right to worship the Deities.

"It is not the case of the revisionist that any class action for the same right was earlier brought under Order I Rule 8 of the Code on behalf of the Hindus and reached some kind of an unsuccessful terminus, so as to bind these plaintiffs in any way. The right to worship for a member of a particular religious community or denomination is his/ her individual right. It is both a civil right and a fundamental right. If not covered by an earlier class action on behalf of the community, there is no principle by which a class or community's inaction would cause the running of limitation under Section 9 of the Act of 1963 continuously against an individual member of that class or community, if he/ she possesses that right in his/ her individual capacity, albeit as a member of that class or community," the Court added.

In view of this, the Court observed that any person from amongst the Hindu devotees, who is denied the right on any day, would be within his right to commence action the day he/ she is prevented from worshipping the Deities.

"...Hindu worshippers of the Deities Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman, which includes the plaintiffs, are sufferers of a continuing wrong in their individual right to worship the Deities. Therefore, there is no substance in the plea that the suit on the cause of action disclosed in the plaint is ex facie barred by limitation, by virtue of Article 58 of the Schedule to the Act of 1963," the Court further noted.

Appearances

Counsel for Revisionist: Sr. Advocate Syed Ahmed Faizan, Zaheer Asghar, Fatma Anjum, Mahmood Alam

Counsel for Opposite Party: Prabhash Pandey, Arya Suman Pandey, Saurabh Tiwari, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Vineet Sankalp, Hari Shankar Jain, Mani Munjal, Parth Yadav 

Additional Advocate General M.C. Chaturvedi assisted by Chief Standing Counsel-V Bipin Bihari Pandey, along with Additional Chief Standing Counsel Rananjay Singh, Standing Counsels Shrawan Kumar Dubey, Girijesh Kumar Tripathi and Hare Ram Tripathi appeared for the appearing on behalf of defendant-respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8

Case title - Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Smt. Rakhi Singh and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 171 [CIVIL REVISION No. - 101 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 171

Click Here To Read/Download Order