Gyanvapi mosque: Allahabad HC dismisses plea challenging Varanasi court order to allow puja in southern cellar

The puja order had come on a petition filed by Shailendra Kumar Pathak, the head priest of Acharya Ved Vyas Peeth temple, who claimed that his grandfather Somnath Vyas, also a priest, used to perform prayers in the complex until December 1993 when it was stopped through oral orders of the state government. He claimed the cellar had been in the possession of the Vyas family since 1551.

Dismissing the mosque committee’s appeals, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal in his order said, “The worship and rituals which continued to be performed in the cellar by Vyas family till 1993 was stopped by illegal action of State without there being any order in writing.”

“Article 25 of the Constitution of India grants freedom of religion. The Vyas family who continued performance of religious worship and rituals in the cellar could not be denied access by oral order. A citizen’s right guaranteed under Article 25 cannot be taken away by arbitrary action of State,” he said, allowing the puja in the cellar.

“Prima facie, I find that act of the state government since year 1993 restraining Vyas family from performing religious worship and rituals and also by the devotees was a continuous wrong being perpetuated,” the order said.

Outside the Gyanvapi mosque on Monday. (Express photo by Anand Singh)

Justice Agarwal in his order said there was no case to interfere with the District Judge’s orders. “Considering the overall submissions advanced by the respective counsel of the parties and after analysing the material on record, I find that the appellant has not made out any case for interfering in the order dated 17.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 appointing the District Magistrate, Varanasi as Receiver and arranging to carry out worship and rituals in Vyas tehkhana under his supervision by the priest, so appointed. Moreover, worship has already started in the cellar since 01.02.2024,” he said, dismissing both the petitions of the mosque committee.

S M Yasin, joint secretary of the Anjuman Intejamia Masajid Committee, later told reporters that they would move the Supreme Court against the High Court order.

After the District Judge passed the two orders in January, the Masajid Committee had challenged them in the Supreme Court, which asked it to file the challenge in the Allahabad High Court. The committee then filed two separate petitions in the High Court.

The two appeals were heard together with the consent of both sides and decided together by a common judgment and order.

In his arguments, advocate S F A Naqvi, appearing for the mosque committee, stated that the matter relating to the mosque and courtyard with the land underneath already stood settled as Hanafi Muslim Waqf in the judgment in Civil Suit No. 62 of 1936 (Din Mohammad & Others Vs. The Secretary of State for India in Council, decided on August 25, 1937). Once the cellar has been declared as Hanafi Muslim Waqf, the receiver could not have been appointed. The question regarding cellar has already attained finality in view of the decision in the Din Mohammad case.