Gyanvapi case: Allahabad HC orders speedy trial, says 1991 suit not barred by law

The 1991 suit is separate from the one filed by Rakhi Singh and others who have sought the right to worship at Maa Shringar Gauri Sthal on the outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque complex. On Monday, the Archaeological Survey of India submitted a report on the survey of the mosque complex to the Varanasi district court.

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 mandates that the nature of all places of worship, except the one in Ayodhya that was then under litigation, shall be maintained as it was on August 15, 1947. The Act, brought in by the P V Narasimha Rao-led Congress government during the height of the Ram temple movement, was also meant to apply to the disputed Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi and the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple-Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura. Even the Supreme Court, in its landmarking November 2019 ruling on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit which went in favour of the Hindu parties, had underlined that the Act is “a legislative intervention which preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values”.

Justice Agarwal, in his order, said, “I come to the conclusion that the present suit filed by plaintiffs being Suit No. 610 of 1991 is not barred by provisions of Section 4 of Act (Places of Worship Act) of 1991, and the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Code of Civil Procedure).”

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC provides for rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

He said the Act does not define “religious character”, and it only defines “conversion” and “place of worship”.

“What will be the religious character of the disputed place can only be arrived (at) by the competent Court after the evidences are led by the parties to the suit. It is a disputed question of fact, as only part and partial relief has been claimed of entire Gyanvapi compound which comprises settlement plot Nos. 9130, 9131 and 9132,” he said.

“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,” he said.

The High Court order came on five petitions filed by the Gyanvapi mosque committee and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board. The petitions said that the original suit (Ancient Idol of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar and Others vs. Anjuman Intezamia Masajid and Another) filed in 1991 was not maintainable as it was barred by The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

Directing the Varanasi court to conclude the hearing in the original suit within six months, Justice Agarwal said, “It is made clear that the Court below shall not grant unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. In case adjournment is granted, it will be at heavy cost.”

He said “either the Gyanvapi Compound has a Hindu religious character or a Muslim religious character” and that “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 Act only bars conversion of place of worship, but it does not define or lays down any procedure for determining the religious character of place of worship that existed on 15.08.1947,” he said.

Taking note of the pendency of the suit for a long period, Justice Agarwal said, “More than 32 years have elapsed since filing of Original Suit No. 610 of 1991, and only issues have been framed after filing of written statement by defendants. Proceedings of the suit had remained pending for almost 25 years on the strength of interim order granted by this Court on 13.10.1998.”

He said the Varanasi court, hearing the Gyanvapi cases, can order further survey of the site if it is required.

“As the scientific survey is already being conducted by ASI in Original Suit No.18 of 2022, it is hereby directed that ASI shall submit the same report in Suit No. 610 of 1991 and in case it is found that further survey is required, which have been left out in the survey conducted by ASI, the Court below shall issue necessary directions to carry out further survey in view of order dated 08.4.2021,” he said.