Plea seeking rights to worship Shringar Gauri at Gyanvapi maintainable, says Varanasi court

VARANASI: The Varanasi district judge on Monday rejected the petition of Anjuman Intezamia Masajid (AIM) — the Gyanvapi mosque management committee — challenging the maintainability of a suit filed by five Hindu women seeking the right to worship Shringar Gauri and other Hindu deities one the outerwall of the Gyanvapi mosque compound adjacent to Kashi Vishwanath Temple.
District judge AK Vishvesha said that the petition filed by the five women plaintiffs was not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 and his court would continue to hear it, fixing September 22 as the next date of hearing. Merajuddin Siddiqui, the advocate representing the Muslim side, said that the AIM would move the Allahabad high court against the judgement.

Turning down the AIM plea against the maintainability of case No. 693/2021 Rakhi Singh vs state of UP and others under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the district judge stated, “In view of the discussions and analysis of this case, I have come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (Act no. 42 of 1991), The Waqf Act, 1995 (Act no. 43 of 1995) and the UP Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Act no. 29 of 1983) and the application 35C filed by defendant no. 4 (AIM) is liable to be dismissed.”

The 26-page order was delivered in 10 minutes in the presence of lawyers of the two sides and the plaintiffs, who broke into celebration after the district judges pronounced the verdict. Last month, Sohan Lal Arya, husband of one of the women plaintiffs, had received a death threat from an unidentified caller using a Pakistan number. Earlier, former civil judge (senior division) Varanasi, Ravi Kumar Diwakar, who first heard the case before it was transferred to the district judge, also received a threat letter from ‘Islamic Agaz Movement’ in June.

Dismissing the AIM’s application, the court asked it to file a written statement against the points of suit on September 22 when other issues could also be framed. Furthermore, applications pending under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC by several applicants to become a party in the case would also be disposed of on September 22.
“Today’s order has paved the way for for further hearing in the case of Hindu woman plaintiffs seeking worshipping rights,” said Vishnu Jain, advocate of four Varanasi-based plaintiffs — from number 2 to 5 (Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak). The fifth plaintiff, Rakhi Singh, is from Delhi.
Expressing dissatisfaction over the district judge’s order, senior AIM lawyer Merajuddin Siddaqui said, “We would soon file a revision petition in the High Court against this order.”
The case filed by five women plaintiffs in the court of civil judge (senior division) Ravi Kumar Diwakar in August 2021 assumed significance after the court appointed an advocate commissioner for a court-mandated survey of Gyanvapi compound in April this year. Later, when the Allahabad high court turned down the AIM plea seeking to stop the court-mandated survey, the commission began its work on May 6 amid protests.
Plaintiffs and their lawyer claimed on May 16, the last day of survey, that a ‘shivling’ was found in the ablution pond of the Gyanvapi mosque. The civil judge ordered the sealing of the ablution pond, a move which saw the local administration and police working hard to maintain peace and communal harmony during the Friday namaz.
A day after the survey report was submitted before the court on May 19, the AIM moved the Supreme Court, which on May 20 transferred the civil suit from the court of civil judge (senior division) to the district judge.
Significantly, the three-judge bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and PS Narasimha observed that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 'does not bar ascertainment of the religious character of a place of worship'. "We have dealt with the provisions in our Ayodhya verdict. The ascertainment of the religious character of the place of worship is not expressly barred," the bench observed.
In the middle of the hearing, on May 31, veteran advocate Harishankar Jain and his son, who were contesting the case for plaintiffs 2 to 5 and Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh chief Jitendra Singh Visen, who was backing plaintiff number 1 Rakhi Singh, parted ways, though they all remained part of the case.