Varanasi Court On Gyanvapi Mosque - An Analysis

A great deal of legal and historical controversy has surrounded the Gyanvapi Mosque since many Hindu groups maintain that the mosque was built on top of a partially destroyed Kashi Vishwanath temple.

The famous Kashi Vishwanath temple is beside the mosque, where the current legal processes began when some women asked to be allowed to pray in front of the idols on the outside of the mosque every day.

A petition demanding the restoration of Gyanvapiland to the nearby Kashi Vishwanath temple was submitted in October 1991 before a civil judge in Varanasi on behalf of Swayambhu Jyotirlinga Bhagwan Vishweshwar and five other individuals. The petition demanded the mosque's demolition and the expulsion of Muslims from the complex. The petitioners from 1991 had claimed that Aurangzeb had ordered the mosque to be constructed by razing a portion of the 16th-century Kashi Vishwanath Temple. But in 1997, the Varanasi Civil Court ruled that the 1991 Places of Worship Act precluded the suit's maintainability. The temple and mosque sides then each submitted multiple revision petitions to the district court.

In 1998, the District Judge ordered a fresh dispute adjudicate, but the High Court stayed the order for 22 years. In 2020, plaintiffs sought to reopen the case, citing a 2018 Supreme Court order. The Allahabad High Court stayed proceedings in the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir-Gyanvapi Masjid case in 2021.

POINT OF CONTENTION

• In the civil suit, the plaintiffs claimed the right tohave Darshan, Pooja and performance of rituals of Maa Sringar Gauri, LordGanesh and Lord Hanuman and prayed that decree for such declaration bepassed. Permanent prohibitory injunction has also been claimed for restrainingthe defendants from creating any obstacle in performance of Darshan, Pooja,Bhog and other rituals of Goddess Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, LordHanuman, Nandiji at Asthan of Lord Adi Visheshwar.
• The plaintiffs assert in their complaint that until 1993, they had regular access to worship Maa Sringar Gauri daily within the disputed property, situated at the backside of Gyanvapi in the northeast corner. However, after 1993, the District Administration of Varanasi restricted their entry to the property on all days, permitting worship only on the 4th day of Chaitra in Vashantik Navaratra. They claim continuous worship of Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, and Lord Hanuman daily from Independence Day in 1947 until 1993. Proving this contention, they argue, would render the suit not barred by Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED- PLAINTIFF

• Learned counsel for the plaintiffs  cited Ram Jankijee Deities& Ors vs State Of Bihar And Ors1999 (5) Supreme Court cases 50 in which it was held that to constitute a temple it is enough if it is a place of public religious worship and if the people believe in its religious efficacy irrespective of the fact whether there is an idol or a structure or other paraphernalia. It is enough if the devotees or the pilgrims feel that there is some superhuman power which they should worship and invoke its blessings.
•  A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India. Irrespective of the status of mosque in an Islamic country for the purpose of immunity from acquisition by the State in exercise of the sovereign power, its status and immunity from acquisition in the secular ethos of India under the Constitution is the same and equal to that of the placesof worship of the other religions, namely, church, temple etc.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED- RESPONDENT

• The learned counsel for the defendant no.4 cited Ballabh Das & Anr.v. Nur Mohammad & Anr. AIR 1936 Privy Counsel 83, in which it was held that Khasra itself create rights as instrument of title and it is not merely ahistorical material where the Khasra itself is the instrument which confers orembodies the right and there is no other document which creates title. The Khasra and the Map are instrument of title or otherwise the direct foundation of right.

ASI REPORT BREAKDOWN

Before the Gyanvapi Mosque was built in Varanasi, there was a sizable Hindu temple, according to Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who was speaking on behalf of the Hindu side of the dispute and reciting the findings of the Archaeological assessment of India (ASI) assessment and said that every object that was found had documentation. There was no harm done to the building. The current building uses the pillars of the former structure, according to scientific research. There was the pre-existing framework set already.

The carvings from the previous structure were intentionally destroyed for repurposing, as confirmed by statements indicating that 34 inscriptions from the former structure were incorporated into the construction of the present mosque. This assertion implies a deliberate act of demolition to facilitate the creation of the mosque, as highlighted by the utilization of architectural elements and floral decorations from the pre-existing temple in the main hall of the mosque.

Furthermore, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report, accessible to both Hindu and Muslim parties in accordance with the court's directive, provides detailed insights into the transformation of the site. The report documents the reuse of temple components, such as pillars and pilasters, in the mosque's construction, with modifications made to accommodate the new structure. Additionally, it reveals the mutilation of carvings and the incorporation of earlier inscriptions into the mosque, suggesting a systematic process of repurposing materials from the demolished temple for the mosque's enlargement and renovation.

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has provided a report on Gyanvapi Mosque, revealing that the temple had a central chamber and several chambers to the north, south, and west. The report also revealed that parts of the pre-existing temple, including pillars and pilasters, were reused for the mosque's expansion and construction of a sahan. The pillars and pilasters in the corridor were mutilated and decorated with floral designs. The ASI survey recorded 34 inscriptions and 32 estampages, which are inscriptions on the stones of pre-existing Hindu temples, which were re-used during the construction or repair of the existing structure.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

• Defendant no. 4 failed to establish that the plaintiffs' lawsuit is prohibited by the provisions of the U.P. Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Act no. 29 of 1983). Section 5 of the Act stipulates that the ownership of the temple and its assets shall be vested in the deity of Shri Kashi Vishwanath. Furthermore, Section 6 of the Act dictates that from the appointed date, the management and administration of the Temple and its assets shall be entrusted to a Board known as the Board of Trustees for Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple.
• Additionally, Section 4 (5) of the Act defines an endowment as encompassing all properties, whether movable or immovable, that belong to or are bestowed upon the Temple for its sustenance, enhancement, or the execution of any worship, service, ritual, ceremony, or other religious practices within the Temple premises, along with any associated charitable activities, including the idols installed therein.
• Following district judge A K Vishvesh's dismissal, a detailed hearing and evidence review will take place on the civil claims. Judge Vishvesha has also decided that the petition that the Hindu women had brought was maintainable.