The Varanasi district court rejected on Monday a plea questioning the maintainability of a petition seeking permission for daily worship of Shringar Gauri and other deities whose idols are located on an outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque. Judge AK Vishvesha dealt with 3 questions before arriving at his decision
1 Whether the suit is barred by The Places of Worship Act 1991?
What the order says:
“. . . The plaintiffs have not sought declaration or injunction over the property/land plot No. 9130. They have not sought the relief for converting the place of worship from a mosque to a temple. The plaintiffs are only demanding right to worship Maa Shringar 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 plaintiffs are…not claiming ownership over the disputed property. They have also not filed the suit for declaration that the disputed property is a temple”
“. . . In the present case, the plaintiffs are demanding the right to worship Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, Lord Hanuman at the disputed property, therefore, the civil court has jurisdiction to decide this case”
“Thus, according to plaintiffs, they worshipped Maa Shringar 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 a bar on the suit of the plaintiffs and the suit of plaintiffs is not barred by Section 9 of the Act”
Whether suit is barred by Section 85 of the Waqf Act 1995?
What the order says (on AIM’s claim that Gyanvapi is a Waqf property):
“I have come to the conclusion that the bar under Section 85 of the Waqf Act does not operate in the present case because the plaintiffs are non-Muslims and strangers to the alleged Waqf created at the disputed property and relief claimed in the suit is not covered under Sections 33, 35, 47, 48, 51, 54, 61, 64, 67, 72 & 73 of the Waqf Act. Hence, suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by Section 85 of the Waqf Act 1995”
Whether the suit is barred by the UP Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983?
What the order says:
“From the perusal of (above mentioned) provisions of the Act, it is clear that no bar has been imposed by the Act regarding a suit claiming right to worship idols installed in the endowment within the premises of the temple, or outside. Therefore, defendant No. 4 failed to prove that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the UP Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983”
1 Whether the suit is barred by The Places of Worship Act 1991?
What the order says:
“. . . The plaintiffs have not sought declaration or injunction over the property/land plot No. 9130. They have not sought the relief for converting the place of worship from a mosque to a temple. The plaintiffs are only demanding right to worship Maa Shringar 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 plaintiffs are…not claiming ownership over the disputed property. They have also not filed the suit for declaration that the disputed property is a temple”
“. . . In the present case, the plaintiffs are demanding the right to worship Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, Lord Hanuman at the disputed property, therefore, the civil court has jurisdiction to decide this case”
“Thus, according to plaintiffs, they worshipped Maa Shringar 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 a bar on the suit of the plaintiffs and the suit of plaintiffs is not barred by Section 9 of the Act”
Whether suit is barred by Section 85 of the Waqf Act 1995?
What the order says (on AIM’s claim that Gyanvapi is a Waqf property):
“I have come to the conclusion that the bar under Section 85 of the Waqf Act does not operate in the present case because the plaintiffs are non-Muslims and strangers to the alleged Waqf created at the disputed property and relief claimed in the suit is not covered under Sections 33, 35, 47, 48, 51, 54, 61, 64, 67, 72 & 73 of the Waqf Act. Hence, suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by Section 85 of the Waqf Act 1995”
Whether the suit is barred by the UP Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983?
What the order says:
“From the perusal of (above mentioned) provisions of the Act, it is clear that no bar has been imposed by the Act regarding a suit claiming right to worship idols installed in the endowment within the premises of the temple, or outside. Therefore, defendant No. 4 failed to prove that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the UP Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983”