Gyanvapi suit not barred by Places of Worship Act; trial court to decide if it is a temple or mosque: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday held that the question of whether the Gyanvapi compound in Varanasi is a Hindu or Muslim religious place would have to be decided by a trial court and that the 1991 suit on this issue is not barred by the Places of Worship Act (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. .Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal held that the bar on filing suits questioning the nature of religious places under the Places of Worship Act (which seeks to preserve the religious character of any place of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947), is only applicable to places that have an "undisputed" religious nature. .In this case, however, the Court noted the religious character of the Gyanvapi compound is disputed. ."Section 4(1) and 4(2) of the Act of 1991 apply to the undisputed structure. Merely by asserting that certain place is used as place of worship by certain section of persons would not declare the religious character of that place. The Act was promulgated with the object to set at rest the controversies arising from time to time for conversion of place of worship, and the Government felt that such conversion should be prohibited … However, in the instant case, the relief sought by plaintiffs is not of converting any place of worship, but a declaration has been sought as to the religious character for part of Gyanvapi compound … According to the plaintiffs, the religious character has never changed and the Gyanvapi compound is the place of Adi Lord Vishweshwar, and by raising alleged Mosque in part of it will not change the character," the Court observed. .The Hindu parties have claimed in their suit that an ancient temple existed on the Gyanvapi compound and that the "Hindu" character of this land did not change even if the temple structure was later torn down on Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's orders to erect a mosque. .The Court observed that the Places of Worship Act does not define “religious character." Rather, it only defines the terms “conversion” and “place of worship." Therefore, questions regarding the "religious character" of a piece of land or structure have to be decided on a case-to-case basis, Justice Agrawal said. In the present case, since there were disputing claims over the religious character of the Gyanvapi compound, the matter has to be decided by the trial court, the High Court concluded. Unless and until the court adjudicates upon this issue, the disputed place of worship at Gyanvapi cannot be called either a temple or a mosque, the judge added. ."Thus, I find that religious character of the disputed place as it existed on 15.08.1947 is to be determined by documentary as well as oral evidence led by both the parties. Unless and until the court adjudicates, the disputed place of worship cannot be called as a temple or mosque ... Either the Gyanvapi Compound has a Hindu religious character or a Muslim religious character. It can’t have dual character at the same time. The religious character has to be ascertained by the Court considering pleadings of the parties, and evidences led in support of pleadings. No conclusion can be reached on the basis of framing of preliminary issue of law," the judgment stated. .Therefore, the High Court rejected petitions filed by the Muslim side challenging the maintainability of the 1991 civil suit filed by Hindu worshippers seeking rights to worship in premises currently occupied by the Gyanvapi mosque. The Hindu parties had also sought the restoration of an ancient temple (Lord Vishweshwar temple) they claimed had been located in the compound. The Court on Tuesday dismissed five petitions by the Muslim side, which included petitions challenging the maintainability of the suit as well as earlier orders directing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to survey the Gyanvapi premises. .The main argument by the Muslim parties which also included the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, was that the suit by the Hindu parties was barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991. This argument was rejected by the High Court today.The Hindu side defended their 1991 suit on the ground that the dispute predated the Places of Worship Act..Gyanvapi-Kashi Viswanath case: Allahabad High Court rejects plea by Muslim side challenging suit for worship rights in mosque.The Court today held that even the Places of Worship Act does not contain an absolute bar preventing parties from approaching courts to enforce their rights concerning any religious place or place of worship. Rather, the Court observed that one exception to the Act is a case where a religious "conversion" has taken place before the commencement of the Act."Sub-Section (3) of Section 4 enumerates certain cases in which the parties can approach the court for redressal of their grievance. Sub-Section (3)(d) is one of those case, where conversion has taken place much before the commencement of the Act and a party had not approached the court, the acquiescence or silence would not bar the action of such party," the Court's judgment stated. .The Court proceeded to order the trial court to decide the matter as soon as possible, preferably in six months, considering the vital national importance of the case. "The dispute raised in the suit is of vital national importance. It is not a suit between the two individual parties. It affects two major communities of the country. Due to the interim order operating since 1998, the suit could not proceed. In the national interest, it is required that the suit must proceed expeditiously and be decided with utmost urgency with the cooperation of both the contesting parties without resorting to any dilatory tactics," the Court ordered. .The Court added that the trial court should not grant unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. In the event an adjournment is granted, it would come at a heavy cost, the Court said. .The Muslim side (petitioners before the High Court, defendants before the trial court) were represented by Senior Advocate Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi and advocates Punit Kumar Gupta, AP Sahi, AK Rai, DK Singh,GK Singh, MAQadeer, SI Siddiqui, Syed Ahmed Faizan, Tahira Kazmi, VK Singh, Vishnu Kumar Singh, Zaheer Asghar, MA Haseen and Ateeq Ahmad Khan.The Hindu side (respondents before the High Court and plaintiffs before the trial court) were represented by Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan and advocates Ajay Kumar Singh, Hare Ram, Manoj Kumar Singh, Tejas Singh, Vineet Pandey, Vineet Sankalp, CSC AP Srivastava, Ashish Kr Singh, Bakhteyar Yusuf, Hare Ram, Manoj Kumar Singh, Prabhash Pandey, RS Maurya, Rakesh Kumar Singh and VKS Chaudhary..[Read Judgment]