[Gyanvapi-Mosque Case] Court Allows Right To Worship, Rejects Anjuman Intezami Committee’s Plea Against Maintainability of Suit; Places Of Worship Act No Bar To Suit
(Judicial Quest News Network)
The places of worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not operate as a bar on the suit of the Hindu parties, the Court said.
A Varnasi court on Monday dismissed a plea of Anjuman Islamia Masjid committee challenging the maintainability of the suit filed by five Hindu women seeking worship rights in the Gyanvapi mosque compound.
The masjid committee plea was file under (Order 7 Rule 11 CPC).
The district Judge Ajay Krishna Vishwesha observed that the suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by the Places of Worsjip Act (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, The Waqf Act 1995, and the U.P Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 as was being claimed by the Anjuman masjid Committee (which manages Gyanvapi Masjid).
The court in its order said that Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee contended that the suit is not maintainable, court says that the plaintiffs only sought a right to worship, not a declaration over the land.
The plaintiffs are only demanding right to worship Maa Sringar Gauri and other visible and invisible deities which were being worshipped incessantly till 1993 and after 1993 till now once in a year under the regulatory of State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not operate as the bar on the suit of plaintiffs. The suit of the plaintiffs is limited and confined to the right of worship as a civil right and fundamental right as well as customary and religious right. I agree with the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The order reads.
The court agreed by the main argument advanced by the plaintiffs that they had not sought conversion of the place of worship from a Mosque to Temple.
As far as the applicability of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 as a bar to the suit filed by the Hindu women worshippers, the Court specifically held that since the Hindu Worshippers claim that the Hindu Deities were being worshipped by them inside the masjid complex even after August 15, 1947 (which is the cut-off date provided under the places of Worship Act), therefore this Act has no applicability here in this case.
Further, according to the pleadings of the plaintiffs, they were worshipping Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman, and Lord Ganesh at the disputed place incessantly since a long time till 1993. After 1993, they were allowed to worship the above mentioned Gods only once in a year under the regulatory of State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, according to plaintiffs, they worshipped Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman at the disputed place regularly even after 15th August, 1947.
Therefore, The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not operate as bar on the suit of the plaintiffs and the suit of plaintiffs is not barred by Section 9 of the Act.
Further, it was held that the suit was not barred by the Waqf Act since the plaintiffs were not Muslims and was strangers to the alleged Waqf created at the disputed property.
The Muslim parties had filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) challenging the maintainability of of the suit.
The section 4 of the Act states that the religious character of a place of worship existing on August 15, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day.
It bars court from entertaining cases regarding such places of worship. The provision further states that such cases already pending in courts would stand abated.
The case arose after Hindu devotees approached the civil court claiming the right to worship inside the premises of the Gyanvapi Mosque, on the ground that it was a Hindu temple and still houses Hindu deities.
Earlier the civil court ordered a survey of the Mosque by an advocate commissioner. The advocate commissioner then conducted the videographer survey an submitted a report to the civil court.
