- Saroj Singh
- BBC correspondent
image source, SAMEERATMAJ MISHRA
The controversy over Gyanvapi Masjid is very old but these days there is a new visible boom.
The Gyanvapi controversy cannot be properly understood without understanding a law made before the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1991.
First of all, let us know what the Place of Worship Act of 1991 is?
The issue dates back to 1991. At that time, the nationwide movement to build a temple at Ayodhya Shri Ram Janmabhoomi was in full swing.
In 1990, BJP leader LK Advani launched a nationwide Rath Yatra. He was arrested in Bihar. Bullets were fired at kar sevaks the same year. Communal tension was boiling across the country and especially in Uttar Pradesh.
At that time, this law was passed on September 18, 1991.
At that time, the Narasimha Rao government in the Center had passed the Parliament Places of Worship Act.
The Places of Worship Act states that the religious site of India where it was on August 15, 1947 will remain in this form, no change can be made in its status.
This law applies to all religious sites in the country, including Gyanvapi Mosque and Shahi Idgah in Mathura.
By then, many BJP leaders, including Uma Bharti, had strongly opposed the new law. I had said that by making such a law we cannot turn a blind eye to other similar issues.
image source, https://legislative.gov.in/
Section (3) of this Act states that no one may alter the nature of the place of worship of any religious denomination or section thereof.
Article 4.1 of the same law states: It is stated that the religious character of the place of worship existing on August 15, 1947 will remain the same as that day.
Section 4 (2) of the Act reads: If, at the commencement of this Act, any claim, appeal or other proceeding in respect of any change in the religious character of any place of worship existing on 15 August 1947. any court, tribunal or authority pending before it shall be set aside. and no lawsuit, appeal or other proceeding shall be resumed before any court, tribunal or authority in any case.
According to section (5) of this law, the Ayodhya dispute was kept out of it because the matter was pending in court before independence. Another exception to this may be those religious sites that belong to the Department of Archaeological Prospecting and there are no restrictions on their maintenance work.
image source, ANI
Where was the issue of Gyanvapi Masjid during 1991 and what happened after the law?
Even before 1991, there was a dispute over the Gyanvapi Mosque, the most important of which was in 1809, which also led to communal riots.
After the act of worship in 1991, a petition was filed in court for a survey of this mosque.
Harihar Pandey, who filed the petition, told the BBC that “in 1991, three people had filed this case”. Apart from me, Somnath Vyas and Ramrang Sharma, who was a professor at Sampurnan and Sanskrit University, took part. These two people are no longer alive. ‘
A few days after the filing of this case, the Gyanvapi Mosque Management Committee demanded the cancellation of the survey request citing the “Places of Worship Act, 1991”. In 1993, the Allahabad High Court had ordered the status quo to be maintained by imposing a suspension.
Then, in 2017, Harihar Pandey returned to Varanasi Civil Court. During this, in another case of the Supreme Court, it was ruled that no suspension order can be valid for more than 6 months, the suspension order must be renewed after 6 months.
Based on this Supreme Court ruling, Harihar Pandey questioned the validity of Gyanvapi’s suspension order and returned to Varanasi Civil Court in 2019 with a petition. This time he also added the demand for polling of the mosque premises.
In this case, the hearing began and after this hearing, the archaeological study of the mosque as a whole was approved. But Masjid’s part returned to the High Court on the basis of the 1991 Act and the High Court suspended that inquiry.
Harihar Pandey’s petition is still in the Allahabad High Court and no legal decision has been made.
image source, UTPAL PATHAK
Road to Kashi Vishwanath Temple and Gyanvapi Mosque
Challenge to the entry into force of the law on places of worship in 2020
In October 2020, BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay filed a petition in the Supreme Court questioning the constitutional validity of the 1991 Places of Worship Act.
He made two main points in his argument.
The first is that the central government has no right to make this law. They argue that “public order” means “law and order” is a matter for the state government. When the Narasimha Rao government made this law, the deterioration of the country’s legal system and the state became its basis.
In his petition, Ashnini Upadhyay made the second argument that both the Center and the state have the right to make laws on “pilgrimage,” that is, “pilgrimage.” But when the issue is international, like Kailash Mansarovar or Nankana Sahib, that jurisdiction becomes the central government. When it comes to state-owned religious sites, then it is a matter of state jurisdiction.
In the same period, Lucknow-based Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh also filed a similar petition.
The Supreme Court heard the two petitions separately and asked the central government for answers on them. The central government has not yet submitted its response to the court. The Supreme Court has now decided to hear the two petitions together.
image source, READY
Why did the Gyanvapi case return to court in 2021?
On August 18, 2021, five women filed a new petition in a court in Benares.
These women are being led by Rakhi Singh, who is from Delhi. The remaining four women applicants are residents of Banaras.
All these demand that they be allowed to offer darshan, worship and enjoyment of Maa Shringar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman, and so on. Special and Nandi ji and other deities seen in the temple facilities at Gyanvapi Masjid facilities.
The petitioners claim that Maa Shringar Devi, Lord Hanuman, Ganesh and other deities are present in the jurisdiction of the Dashashwamedh Police Station on Plot No. 9130, adjacent to Kashi Vishwanath Temple.
They also demand that Anjuman Intezamiya Masajid be prevented from breaking, overthrowing or damaging the idols of the deities, and order the Uttar Pradesh government to allow the darshan of the deities in the courtyard of the “Ancient Temple”. Take all safety precautions for worship.
In their petition, these women had also made a separate application and demanded that the court appoint a Lawyer Commissioner (Lawyer Commissioner) to ensure the safety of the idols of all these deities.
Justifying this demand, both the Provincial Court and later the Court approved the inspection action of the mosque premises.
image source, ANI
What happened in 2022?
On April 8, 2022, at the request of these women, the lower court appointed local lawyer Ajay Kumar as a law commissioner and ordered her to inspect the Gyanvapi campus with video cameras.
Anjuman Intezamiya Masajid of Varanasi challenged the appointment of the Lawyer Commissioner and the proposal for inspection in the High Court. The High Court rejected the request of the mosque management on April 21, 2022.
Gyanvapi Masjid (plot no. 9130) was inspected this month at the request of the women, which was completed on 16 May.
On May 17, the inspection report was not submitted to the local court and the Attorney General requested a two-day deadline.
The hearing on the petition of the mosque management against the inspection of the Gyanvapi mosque complex has started this Tuesday in the Supreme Court.