Gyanvapi Case Order Today-All You Want To Know About The Present Case

Earlier this year, in August a local court in Varanasi had reserved its verdict/order on a petition/plea moved by the Anjuman Islamia Masjid Committee which questioned the maintainability of the suit filed by five women who were from the Hindu faith. The suit sought year-long access to offer prayers at the Hindu shrine behind the western wall of the Gyanvapi Mosque complex.

Back then when the property dispute began in the early 90s, the trial court at Varanasi began the proceedings, and later the same was challenged before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioners, Anjuman Intezamiya challenged the validity/maintainability of the said suit on the ground that Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 bars any such suit or proceeding.

On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the original character of the Temple does not change, and even today, the same is continuing. Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1991 do not apply in the said case. The Court, after considering the contentions of the parties, stayed the proceedings before the trial court by an order dated October 13, 1998.

Now, in this suit which has been moved by Hindu women, it has been claimed and alleged that the premises of Gyanvapi Mosque was once a Hindu temple and it was demolished by Mughal Ruler Aurangzeb thereafter, the mosque was built. On the other hand, the Muslim side had argued (Anjuman Masjid committee) has argued that the suit is specifically barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

District Judge A. K. Vishvesha had reserved the order back in August and it is likely to be pronounced on September 12, 2022. Here are five things one should know about the controversy and the law which revolves around the same:

1. Order 11 Rule 7 application to be decided

In a civil suit/proceeding the suit is instituted by the presentation of a plaint, hence under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 7 Rule 11 talks about the instances when the court "shall" reject a plaint. There are numerous grounds on which the court can reject the plaint.

It says that the court shall reject it where it (a) does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9.

In the Gyanvapi-Kashi dispute, the Muslim parties have claimed that the suit should be rejected on the basis on clause (d) which says that the suit shall be rejected where it is barred by any law. Hence, in this case the reference has been made to the Places of Worship Act of 1991 which bars

2. Places of worship act and the suit in question

The main hurdle behind the whole dispute is a law passed in 1991 which restricts and prohibits any litigation which disrupts the status quo of any monument which stood as it is before 1947. The provisions of the Act make it clear that all places of worship in the country will remain as they were on August 15, 1947, and cases seeking conversion of a place of worship to that of another religion or faith "shall abate."

Under the Act, Section 5 of the 1991 Act states that "nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the place or place of worship commonly known as Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid situated in Ayodhya in the State of Uttar Pradesh and to any suit, appeal or other proceeding relating to the said place or place of worship".

Section 3 of the Act prohibits of conversion of any place of worship, and section 4 states that "any suit, appeal or other proceeding" connected with the conversion of "the religious character" of a place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947 pending "shall abate" and will not be considered by any court, tribunal or other authority.

A challenge to The Places of Worship Act by former BJP spokesperson Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay is pending before the Supreme Court, which on 12 March 2021 issued notice to the union government seeking its response.

The petition in the Supreme Court reflects the divergent views on the subject, between those who, like Bharti and most supporters of the BJP, believe historical issues must be addressed and those who believe the law must be followed and indeed is required in a country riven with inter-religious strife.

It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court while deciding the Ayodhya title dispute in 2019 said that the Places of Worship Act is "a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution".

"The State, has by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalized its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism which is a part of the basic features of the Constitution," reads the judgement.

3. The litigation before the Supreme Court

The Gyanvapi-Kashi dispute pertains to two suits, one of which was filed in 1991 citing that the said temple was destroyed by the Mughals. Another suit was filed in 2021 by female devotees and worshippers of Lord Shiva, practicing the Vedic Sanatan Hindu dharma before Civil Senior Judge, Varanasi seeking "restoration of performance of rituals at principal seat of an Ancient Temple" at the Gyanvapi mosque area". The proceedings in the 1991 suit has been stayed by the Allahabad High Court.

A lower court had ordered a videography survey of the complex which was completed on May 16 with the report presented in the court on May 19. The Hindu side had claimed that a Shivling was found in the mosque's lower court during the survey. However, the claim was contested by the Muslim side and this was also one of the issues raised before the Supreme Court.

On, May 17 the Supreme Court clarified that the order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division at Varanasi to protect the spot where a "shiv ling" was claimed to have been found during the survey of the Gyanvapi mosque will not restrict the right of Muslims to access the mosque to offer namaz and to perform religious observances. It had also directed the District Magistrate concerned to ensure that the place inside the Mosque where 'Shiv Ling' is stated to have been found is protected.

The dispute had also reached the Supreme Court after multiple orders having been passed by both the Civil Court in Varanasi and especially when the local court had ordered the examination of the premises of the Gyanvapi mosque. The Supreme Court had transferred the suit (filed by Hindu women), to the District Court in Varanasi.

A three-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and PS Naramsimha ordered,

" Having regards to complexities involved in civil suit & the sensitivity we are of the view that the suit before the Judge, Varanasi should be tried before a senior and experienced judicial officer of UP Higher Judicial Service. We accordingly order and direct that the Civil Suit before Civil Judge Senior Division Varanasi shall stand transferred to District Judge Varanasi and all interlocutory applications shall stand transferred."

With regard to the Order 7 Rule 11 application which we have discussed above, the Supreme Court had then said that the application filed by the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (which manages Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi) before the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the suit as being barred in law, shall be decided on priority by the District Judge.

4. What will be the outcome of today's order/verdict?

The local court Varanasi will be pronouncing its verdict/order on the Order 7 Rule 11 application moved by the Muslim party, objecting to the entertainment of the said citing the Places of Worship Act of 1991. In case the court decides the application and says that the suit is not maintainable, then automatically the litigation connected to the controversy stands abated, but if the court decides otherwise and rejects the objections of the Muslim party, the suit shall continue and the litigation in the said dispute will continue. Needless to say that the parties are free to approach the Supreme Court as the matter has been kept pending by the court.

It is pertinent to note that this is not the only case which is pertaining to such issues which revolve around maintainability and the 1991 Act. Here are five instances where the origin of various structures were challenged before the courts despite the law: in Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh), New Delhi, Dhar (Madhya Pradesh), and Agra and Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)

In terms of law, whatever may be the outcome of the case, one thing is clear as of today the law (Places of Worship Act of 1991) stands as it is and section 3 of the places of worship act clears states that no conversion/alteration of any religious structure should be done and status quo shall be maintained.

"No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof." Reads section 3 of the Act