The Gyanvapi mosque is located close to the Kashi Vishwanath temple.
.gif "Gyanvapi Case: Varanasi court accepts Hindu plea for worship | The Place chs of Worship Act 1991 |")
WHAT IS THE CONTROVERSY OVER GYANVAPI MOSQUE ?
The petitioner says that the self-styled Jyotirling of Lord Vishwanath in Kashi (Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh) is in the Gyanvapi complex.
The petitioner also claimed Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb had destroyed a portion of the Kashi Vishwanath temple in 1669 and built a mosque named Gyanvapi Masjid.
The petitioner wants the court to declare that Muslims have no right to occupy the Gyanvapi Masjid site and their entry should be barred.
The defence says that there was no temple in the Gyanvapi complex and the mosque is standing on the site from the very beginning.
TIMELINE OF THE CONTROVERSY
In 1991, the first petition in the case was filed in Varanasi court by Swayambhu Jyotirlinga Bhagwan Vishweshwar. The petitioner had sought permission to worship in Gyanvapi complex.
He had placed three demands before the court including that the court should declare the entire Gyanvapi complex as a part of the Kashi temple.
Besides, he also sought eviction of Muslims from the complex area and also sought mosque in the complex to be demolished.
In 1998, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee filed a case at the Allahabad High Court. The committee in their plea before the court asserted that the temple mosque land dispute could not be adjudicated by a civil court as it was barred by the law.
It was on the directions of the high court that the proceedings in the lower court got stayed which continued for the past 22 years.
In 2019, a person named Rastogi filed a plea on behalf of Swayambhu Jyotirlinga Bhagwan Vishweshwar in Varanasi district court. The petitioner demanded that an archaeological survey of the entire
Gyanvapi mosque complex should be carried out. In 2020, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee opposed the petition seeking ASI survey of the entire Gyanvapi complex. In the same year, the petitioner again approached the lower court with a petition, requesting to resume the hearing as the Allahabad High Court had not extended the stay further.
Now, the court is hearing a petition by five Hindu women seeking daily prayers before the idols on the mosque's outer wall. Following the survey and the reported finding of a shivling inside the complex, the court ordered the spot in the complex to be sealed.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED NOW ?
The Varanasi District Court in Uttar Pradesh on Monday ruled that the petition of Hindu devotees in the Gyanvapi Mosque case is maintainable, Rejecting the challenge to the petition by Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee.
Hindu petitioners have sought permission for daily prayers before the idols on outer walls of the Gyanvapi mosque.
The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee had said the Gyanvapi mosque is a Waqf property and had questioned the maintainability of the plea.
Madan Mohan Yadav, a lawyer of the Hindu side, had said that the mosque was constructed after demolishing the temple.
"Muslim side will continue with its arguments. According to them, the case is not maintainable, but we've said that it's maintainable. Our demand to grant worship there is legally valid," said Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain earlier, appearing for the Hindus.
SURVEY OF THE MOSQUE
A Varanasi civil court had ordered the survey of the mosque complex while hearing a petition by five Hindu women seeking permission for daily prayers before the idols on its outer walls.
It was claimed that a shivling was found in the mosque compound during the survey. The court-appointed commission that surveyed the mosque complex submitted its report on May 19. Madan Mohan Yadav, an advocate of the Hindu side, earlier claimed that the survey team found shivling in the complex near "wazookhana" - A place inside a mosque where people wash hands before offering namaaz.
Earlier, the Supreme Court on May 20 transferred the civil suit filed by Hindu devotees on Gyanvapi mosque from civil judge (senior division) to district judge of Varanasi, Citing complexities and sensitivity of the case and saying it is better for a senior judicial officer to handle it.
The apex court directed the district judge to first decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on maintainability filed by the Mosque committee saying the civil suit is barred by a law of Parliament.
WHAT IS THE 1991 ACT ?
The Act says that no person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination into one of a different denomination or section.
It contains a declaration that a place of worship shall continue to be as it was on August 15, 1947. The law was enacted to freeze the status of all places of worship in the country as on August 15, 1947.
An exception was made to keep the Babri Masjid Ramjanmabhoomi dispute out of its ambit as the structure was then the subject of litigation.
The dispute ended after the court ruled that the land on which the Masjid stood should be handed over to the Hindu community for the construction of a Ram temple.
The challenge to the Act questions the legality of the prohibition it imposes on any community laying claim to the places of worship of another.
DOES THIS ACT APPLIES TO ALL PLACES ?
The 1991 Act will not apply in some cases. It will not apply to ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains that are covered by The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
It will also not apply to any suit that has been finally settled or disposed of, any dispute that has been settled by the parties before the 1991 Act came into force.
Anyone contravening the prohibition on converting the status of a place of worship is liable to be imprisoned for up to three years, and a fine. Those abetting or participating in a criminal conspiracy to commit this offence will also get the same punishment.
