In a significant development, the Allahabad High Court, on Monday (February 26), dismissed a petition challenging an order permitting Hindus to offer puja in the southern cellar called Vyas Tehkhana, inside the Gyanvapi premises in Varanasi.
A single bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Aggarwal presided over the hearing of the plea filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, contesting a district judge’s order that sanctioned Hindu worship in the ‘Vyas Ji Ka Tehkhana’, situated in the southern region of the disputed Gyanvapi complex.
The controversy erupted when, on January 31, a Varanasi court ruled in favour of Hindu devotees, allowing them to offer puja inside the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi premises. The court directed the Varanasi district magistrate to facilitate arrangements within seven days for the ‘puja’ to be conducted by the Hindu side, with a pujari (priest) nominated by the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust. Following the court’s directive, “puja” and “aarti” ceremonies were conducted in the early hours of February 1.
Subsequently, the mosque committee challenged the Varanasi court’s decision in the Allahabad High Court, which reserved its decision after hearing arguments on February 15.
The Varanasi court’s ruling came after four women plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking excavation and a survey of the sealed section of the Gyanvapi mosque. This plea was prompted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report, which, according to the Hindu side, indicated the existence of a large Hindu Mandir before the construction of the Gyanvapi mosque. (Read details from the ASI report here)
In response, the women argued that the true nature of the ‘Shivling’ could only be determined through excavation and a comprehensive survey of the sealed area, employing scientific methods to discern the site’s historical significance.
Several Hindu activists have long contended that a temple stood at the disputed Gyanvapi site before being demolished in the 17th century on the orders of Mughal invader Aurangzeb, a claim contested by the Muslim side.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the Hindu side, expressed satisfaction with the Allahabad High Court’s decision, stating, “Today, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the first appeal from orders of Anjuman Intezamia wherein the order of January 17 and 31 passed by Varanasi district court was under challenge before Allahabad HC. The crux of the matter is that the ongoing puja in the ‘Vyas Tehkhana’ of Gyanvapi complex will continue.”
He added, “If the Anjuman Intezamia comes to the Supreme Court, we will file our caveat before the SC.”
Advocate Prabhash Pandey hailed the court’s decision as a victory for Sanatana Dharma, emphasising that the puja would persist as directed by the district court.
Similarly, advocate Hari Shankar Jain welcomed the decision, asserting, “It is a decision worth welcoming. The right that Hindus have to perform puja has been maintained by the High Court.”
Advocate Subhash Nandan Chaturvedi echoed these sentiments, stating, “Today, even the high court accepted that puja and religious rituals used to take place there… The district court’s order was upheld today… The objection of Anjuman Intezamia’s (Masjid Committee) has been dismissed by the high court.”
However, senior advocates SFA Naqvi and Puneet Gupta, representing the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee, criticised the ruling, arguing that granting final relief through an interim order without determining the rights in the civil suit filed was a violation of legal procedure.
In defence, senior Supreme Court advocates CS Vaidyanathan and Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing on behalf of the Hindu side, countered these arguments, emphasising that the court’s decision did not infringe upon the rights of Muslims and was in line with legal provisions.
CS Vaidyanathan, arguing through video conferencing on behalf of Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust, highlighted the historical precedent of Hindu worship at the site and asserted that the court’s appointment of the Varanasi DM as the receiver did not impede Muslim rights, as namaz had not been offered in the designated area.
The legal battle over the Gyanvapi premises continues to unfold, with implications reaching beyond the immediate dispute to broader questions of historical interpretation and religious rights.
Comments