Gyanvapi Case: Varanasi Court Rejects Plea Seeking Permission to Worship Alleged ‘Shivling’ Inside the Mosque

On June 8, 2022, the Varanasi district court rejected the plea filed by Swami Avimukteshwaranand seeking permission to offer prayers to the structure found inside the Gyanvapi mosque complex which has been claimed to be a ‘Shivling’ as per the survey report of the ordered by the Court.

An urgent hearing was sought on the said application filed on June 4 seeking the right to worship of the alleged Shivling’s worship, bath, makeup and raga-bhog be given immediately, reported the Hindustan Times.

After hearing the matter, the district judge Ajay Krishna Vishwesha rejected the application reportedly stating, “The application presented by the applicant does not appear to be of urgent nature. The application submitted by the applicant for grant of permission to present the suit in summer vacation is rejected.”

Swami Avimukteshwaranand started fast unto death last week after he was denied permission to offer prayers to the alleged Shivling claimed to have been found inside the Gyanvapi complex, reported the Indian Express.

Meanwhile, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind moved the SC seeking to become a party in the PIL challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 which froze the religious character of structures as it was at the time of independence, reported TOI.

The suit with respect to Gyanvapi mosque was originally filed in August 2021, by a few Hindu women before the Civil Court (Senior Division), demanding that the Maa Shringar Gauri Temple located on the premises of the Gyanvapi mosque be reopened, and people be allowed to offer prayers before the idols that are still kept there. The petitioners cited the right to practice one’s faith and religious freedom guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution.

Following this a video survey of the area was ordered and the survey was carried out despite objections raised by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM), which is the mosque management authority. AIM is the defendant in the case. After the Allahabad High Court denied their appeal against the survey, the AIM moved SC where it highlighted how the Places of Worship Act, 1991, prohibits changing the character of a place of worship from what it was on August 15, 1947. Thus, AIM said that the suit was not maintainable as per Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the CPC.

The SC then transferred the case from the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ravi Kumar Diwakar, who had originally ordered the survey, to the court of a more experienced District Judge to decide upon the maintainability of the suit given Order 7, Rule 11.

On Monday, May 30, the court adjourned hearings till July 4. Meanwhile, three more parties - Lord Vishweshara (through next friend) Hindu Sena, Brahmin Sabha, and Nirmohi Akhara, have also approached the court seeking impleadment in the suit as plaintiffs.