"Gyanvapi Mosque Dispute A National Dispute; Emotions Of Millions Are Involved": Lord Vishweshwar's Next Friend Argue In Allahabad HC

In the ongoing hearing before the Allahabad High Court in connection with the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque dispute, the next friend of Lord Vishweshwar, one of the contesting respondents in the case today termed the dispute as a national dispute. 

Before the Bench of Justice Prakash Padia, it was argued that it is not a dispute of property simpliciter, but it is a national dispute with the emotions of millions of people attached to it.

Advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi, the Court appointed next friend of Lord Vishweshwar argued that the Hindu Community believes that the disputed site is a temple of Lord Vishweshwar where as the Muslim Community believes that the disputed site is a Masque.

Significantly, it was his further argument that the decision in the Ram Janambhumi case has increased the importance of the present case.

These submissions have been made in the hearing on a plea moved by Anjuman Intazamia Masazid, Varanasi last year seeking a stay on the proceedings of the Varanasi court, and also filed applications challenging the maintainability of the civil suit pending before the lower court.

Opposing the claim/argument that the character of the disputed land had changed when the mosque was constructed over the said disputed land, Advocate Rastogi [the Court-appointed next friend of Lord Vishweshwar] submitted that the character of the religious structure is ascertained on the basis of the whole property, and not on the basis of part of the property.

It was also argued by him that the religious character of the property cannot be changed mere changing a part only and it is only when the whole evidence comes, the religious character of a property could be determined.

Further, regarding the argument put forth by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board claim that the disputed property is a waqf property and therefore, they only have the right over the said property, Advocate Rastogi argued thus:

"(A) mere declaration of masque as Waqf Property, the Waqf Act would not be applicable because it is the dispute between Hindus and Muslims and not between two sets of the Muslim Community, therefore, the Waqf Act could not be applicable in this case."

Due to paucity of time, the arguments could not be concluded and therefore, the Court listed the case on April 8, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. along with other connected matters.

The background of the case