GYANVAPI CASE IN HIGH COURT
WHY IN NEWS?
- Recently, Allahabad High Court has declared prohibition of Hindu worship in the southern cellar of Varanasi’s Gyanvapi Masjid as illegal.
MORE ABOUT THE NEWS:
- Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal’s observed that the 30 years-old restrictions on the Vyas family and his several generation, who had been performing rituals until 1993 in a part of the basement known as “Vyas Ji Ka Tehkhana”, as “a continuous wrong being perpetuated”.
- Justice Agarwal citing Article 25 of the Constitution said that the freedom to practise one’s religion could not be snatched by “arbitrary action of the state”.
- Anjuman Intezamia Masajid (AIM), which manages Gyanvapi mosque challenged the order in favour of Vyas in Allahabad HC on Feb 1 after SC refused to urgently hear its plea.
- AIM argued that the cellar was a part of the mosque premises and that the Vyas family or anyone else should not have access to it.
ABOUT PUJA IN VYAS JI KA TEHKHANA:
- “Vyas Ji Ka Tehkhana” is located in the southern section of the Gyanvapi complex.
- It is called ‘Vyasji ka tehkhana’, after the Vyas family who claim to own the property.
- High Court took cognisance of the existence of the cellar in 1937 as prima facie proof of continued possession by the plaintiff till 1993.
- As per petitioner Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas who is also acharya of Ved Vyas Peeth temple and a member of the family said that they used to perform rituals in the Gyanvapi basement until 1993.
- Petitioner’s maternal grandfather, Somnath Vyas, used to perform puja there regularly till the then SP govt barred access on Dec 4, 1993, soon after SP formed govt.
- In 1993, the Uttar Pradesh government under Mulayam Singh Yadav had orally ordered the Vyas family to stop conducting pujas in the cellar.
ARGUMENTS OF THE MOSQUE COMMITTEE:
- The AIM who is also the management committee of the mosque challenged this order at the Allahabad HC.
- As per the AIM, civil court in Din Mohammed v. The Secretary of State for India (1937) had already declared that the mosque was Hanafi Muslim Waqf property and Muslims were entitled to the land.
- As per AIM, according to this case, it also included the land underneath the mosque, such as the cellar.
- The management committee also relied on Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (POW Act).
- The Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (POW Act) essentially locks the religious character of a place of worship to what it was on August 15, 1947.
- Thus AIM contended that the court’s findings in Din Mohammed are final and the religious character of the mosque cannot be converted by allowing the Vyas family to conduct prayers in the cellar.
ARGUMENTS BY THE COUNTER-SIDE:
- According to the Vyas family, “Din Mohammed ruling vis-a-vis occupation of cellar, worked in their favor”.
- The judgement was relied on a map submitted by the Secretary of State for India, which, they stated, clearly demarcated the Vyasji ka tehkhana.
- As per Vyas family, this map was not a source of contention and the Vyas family was never made a party in the Din Mohammed case, thus the cellar remains in the “possession” of the Vyas family.
- They further claimed that the state government could not have restrained the family from conducting prayers as the mosque never had possession over the Vyasji ka tehkhana.
- The Vyas family also relied on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (POW Act) claiming that the state order restraining worship changed the religious character of the tehkhana, where prayers were routinely held.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER:
- The High Court passed an interim order in favor of the respondents-Vyas family.
- The interim order was based on a prima facie (first impression) analysis of the facts.
- As per the HC order, “The existence of Vyas tehkhana (cellar) owned by Vyas family in the year 1937 is a prima facie proof of the continuous possession claimed by the plaintiff till the year 1993.”
- On the other hand, following the Varanasi District Court’s order permitting worship in the tehkhana, the lead petitioner in the main Gyanvapi Dispute had filed an application for a further ASI survey into all the remaining cellars in Gyanvapi to determine their religious character.
- The Allahabad High Court order also provides a possible path to investigate the religious character of these cellars as well, on the basis of possession and continuous worship.
