The controversial Gyanvapi structure, located next to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple, is once again the eye of the storm as the legal dispute around it reaches the Supreme Court. Five woman petitioners are at the center of the case involving the disputed Gyanvapi complex in the holy Hindu city of Kashi.
Several cases have been filed at the Supreme Court, Allahabad High Court, and local Varanasi Court over the mosque erected in the 17th century by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb after demolishing the holy Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Here is a timeline of the entire conflict over the disputed Gyanvapi structure.
The civil suit in 1936 by Deen Mohammad
In 1936, one Deen Mohammad filed a complaint (Civil Suit No. 62) before a Varanasi Court seeking a determination that the land around the disputed Gyanvapi structure belonged to Waqf. He had asked for a ruling that he and other Muslims had the right to worship, including Alvida prayers, and to exercise other religious and legal rights on the land under dispute.
However, while denying the appeal based on the evidence, the Varanasi court noted that the mosque was built on the site of a Hindu temple that was demolished by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in the seventeenth century. Following the dismissal, Deen Mohammad approached the Allahabad High Court in 1937.
The appeal in Allahabad HC by Deen Mohammad in 1937
In the First Appeal No. 466 of 1937 of the Allahabad HC, Deen Mohammad claimed relief on the grounds that:
(a) It may be declared that the land bearing No. 9130, situate at mauza Shahar Ehas, pargana Dehat Amanat, zila Benares, measuring 1 bijjha, 9 biswas, 6 dhurs, together with the enclosure all round and the platforms and trees and the pucca well, the graveyard, the steps, etc., described in para 2 of the plaint is waqf in the possession of the plaintiffs and other Musalmans and the plaintiffs have a right to say their prayers, especially the Alvida prayers and to exercise their religious and legal rights as the need and occasion arise:
(b) If in the opinion of the Court the plaintiffs are not held to be entitled to the whole or any part of the relief (a), then it may be declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to exercise the said rights by way of custom.
The High Court, again, while dismissing the plea, observed that “The learned Civil Judge has gone into the history of this mosque and has come to the conclusion that it was built on the site of a Hindu temple which was demolished by Emperor Aurangzeb in the seventeenth century. I do not think that it is necessary to go into the question of the origin of the mosque.”
The court further observed that “The learned Judge has found on the historic evidence which was produced before him that the wall with the enclosure originally appertained to a temple and the outer wall was not erected at the time when the mosque was built. It is unnecessary to go into the question of whether the finding is right or wrong.”
The court, while delivering the order, stated that “The evidence does not seem to me to establish in any way that this enclosure is waqf property. The mere fact that a certain number of people overflowed on to the public land on certain occasions when they found it convenient so to do would not prove that land belonged to those people.” The appeal by Deen Mohammad was dismissed with costs.
Petition by temple priest in 1991
In 1991, a flood of applications came to the District Court in Varanasi, as local priests sought permission to pray on the Gyanvapi premises. The petitioners claimed that the Gyanvapi Masjid was erected in the 17th century on the orders of Mughal tyrant Aurangzeb by destroying a part of the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir.
Vijay Shankar Rastogi, a lawyer from Varanasi who appeared before the lower court as the “next friend” of the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir’s presiding deity, was one of these petitioners. Rastogi filed the lawsuit in 1991, alleging that Maharaja Vikramaditya built the temple on the site of the present mosque roughly 2,050 years ago.
He demanded that the Gyanvapi mosque be razed and that Hindus be given ownership of the entire piece of land, as well as the right to worship within the building. Furthermore, he contended that because the Gyanvapi mosque was built on a partially destroyed temple, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 won’t apply in the case.
Following the proceedings in 1997, a Varanasi trial court found that the petitioners’ remedy was limited under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Subsequently, revision petitions were filed, merged, and examined in the trial court of Varanasi.
In 1998, the Anjuman Intejamia Masajid (AIM) Committee which oversees Gyanvapi petitioned the Allahabad High Court, saying that the dispute could not be settled in civil court citing Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The civil court’s proceedings were subsequently placed on hold by the Allahabad High Court.
Revival of the case in 2019
In December 2019, a month after the Supreme Court’s verdict on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi issue, Advocate Rastogi filed a fresh plea on behalf of the Swayambhu Jyotirlinga Bhagwan Vishweshwar demanding an archaeological study of the Gyanvapi structure. In 1998, the Allahabad High Court had ordered that evidence be collected from the whole Gyanvapi complex in order to assess the site’s religious nature, but the lower court’s ruling was postponed.
In April 2021, the Varanasi court ordered the ASI to conduct the survey and submit its findings. The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee opposed Rastogi’s plea and the Varanasi court’s decision for a survey of the mosque.
The case was subsequently heard by the Allahabad High Court, which granted an interim stay on the instruction to the ASI to perform the survey after hearing all parties concerned. According to the high court’s order, the Places of Worship Act, 1991, bans any alteration in the religious character of a place of worship from what it was on August 15, 1947.
The current case of Shringar Gauri Mandir
On April 18, 2021, Rakhi Singh, Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas, and Rekha Pathak filed a lawsuit demanding the right to worship and perform rituals at Shringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, Lord Hanuman, and Nandi on a regular basis, as well as barring opponents from harming the statues inside the disputed Gyanvapi structure.
It is in this case that the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Varanasi, Ravi Kumar Diwakar, had on April 26, 2022, ordered videography of the Shringar Gauri temple in the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi complex and adjoining places.
While Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas, and Rekha Pathak reside in Varanasi and have attended every session since the lawsuit began in August 2021, Rakhi Singh, the fifth and principal petitioner, is located in Delhi and has not been in court. All five women met at a Satsang and agreed to file a case about the issue.
Rakhi Singh (35) is the main petitioner and a founding member of the Vishwa Vedic Sanathan Sangh. Sita Sahu (40) owns a modest general store from her home in Varanasi’s Chetganj area, roughly 2 kilometres from the complex. Manju Vyas (49) owns a beauty parlour 1.5 kilometres from the Gyanvapi complex. Rekha Pathak, a housewife, lives in the Hanuman Phatak area, which is close to the Kashi Vishwanath temple complex. Laxmi Devi (65) is the wife of VHP leader Sohan Lal Arya.
The survey is now complete, and the committee will present its report to the court on May 17. Furthermore, the Muslim side had petitioned the Supreme Court to stop the survey. While the petitioners requested an immediate halt to the proceedings, the court refused to do so without first hearing the matter properly. The case is set to be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
