Introduction:
what is Gyanvapi Case currently in the spotlight, has been a contentious legal battle unfolding in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. With its roots deeply embedded in history, the case revolves around the Gyanvapi mosque complex and the adjacent Kashi Vishwanath Temple. In this article, we delve into the historical background, the ongoing legal proceedings, and the debate surrounding the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
Historical Genesis:
The Gyanvapi mosque complex stands as a testament to a complex history of destruction and reconstruction. The foundation of the legal disputes lies in the claim that a Hindu temple, existing at the site, was demolished during the reign of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. Historian Satish Chandra notes in his book “Medieval India: From Saltanat to the Mughals” that Aurangzeb ordered the temple’s destruction as a punitive measure and due to his perception of it as a source of subversive ideas. This marked a period where several temples faced demolition, with mosques erected in their place.
The Gyanvapi temple experienced destruction on multiple occasions. In 1194 CE, it faced an attack by Aibak, and during Queen Raziya’s reign (1236-1240), the site was taken over, leading to the construction of a mosque. Notably, the temple was reconstructed during Akbar’s rule, only to be demolished again under Aurangzeb. Intriguingly, a section of the temple was deliberately preserved as the rear wall of the mosque, eventually named the Gyanvapi mosque.
The Gyanvapi Mosque and the Kashi Vishwanath Temple currently coexist in close proximity, symbolizing the intricate history of destruction and subsequent reconstruction.
Must Read : Unearthing Historical Layers: Gyanvapi Mosque and the Controversy Surrounding its Origins
Current Status of the Gyanvapi Case:
The recent legal turmoil surrounding the Gyanvapi case emerged from a petition filed in August 2021 by four Hindu devotees seeking the right to daily prayers before Hindu idols on the outer walls of the Gyanvapi mosque. The legal journey has traversed local courts, district courts, the Allahabad High Court, and the Supreme Court.
The Varanasi district court, in a significant development on July 21, 2023, ordered a survey of the site, excluding the wuzu khana (ablution area), where Hindus claimed to have discovered a Shivling last year. However, the Supreme Court intervened, staying the survey and directing the mosque committee to seek relief from the Allahabad High Court. The recent decision by the High Court dismissing the plea has now paved the way for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a scientific survey and excavation of the Gyanvapi mosque complex.
Legal Implications and the Places of Worship Act:
Central to the legal discourse is the interpretation and application of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The Act prohibits the conversion of a place of worship from its status on August 15, 1947, the day of India’s independence from British rule.
The Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee, managing the Gyanvapi mosque. Contends that the legal proceedings aim to alter the religious character of the mosque. Violating their rights under the Places of Worship Act. However, the bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and P S Narasimha has stated. That the Act does not bar the ascertainment of the religious character of a place.
The Gyanvapi mosque committee argues that the act has been violated by the ongoing proceedings. Which they perceive as an attempt to change the mosque’s religious character. On the contrary, the Varanasi court, considering. The arguments, concluded that the Places of Worship Act does not prohibit civil suits.
The Battle Against the Places of Worship Act:
The crux of the matter revolve around whether the litigant from the Hindu side are restrict. By the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Section 4 of the Act specifies that the religious character of a place of worship on August 15, 1947. Shall remain the same.
The Muslim party in the case contends that allowing the lawsuit would fundamentally alter the mosque’s character. Which has remained constant for over 600 years. The Hindu petitioners argue that regular prayers to Hindu deities inside the mosque complex were offered until 1993. And subsequently, prayers were permitted annually on a specific day. The Varanasi court, based on this stance, concluded that the Places of Worship Act does not prohibit civil suits.
Presently, the Supreme Court is reviewing at least two petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act. Filed by the Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh and followers of the Sanatan Vedic religion from Lucknow. Along with advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, these petitions argue that the Act bars judicial review. Imposes an arbitrary and retroactive cutoff date, and infringes upon the religious rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs.
Also Read : Gyanvapi Mosque: A Contested Spiritual Space in Varanasi
Conclusion:
The Gyanvapi case unfolds as a complex tapestry woven with historical intricacies, religious sentiments, and legal nuances. As the legal battle continues, it brings to the forefront questions about the. Interpretation and applicability of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The intersection of history, faith, and law in this case makes it a significant and closely watched. Legal saga, prompting a broader reflection on the delicate balance between historical preservation and contemporary legal frameworks.
In essence, the Gyanvapi case prompts us to explore not only the layers of history. But also the evolving dynamics of legal frameworks that seek to navigate. The complexities of religious diversity and cultural heritage in modern India.
