Top quotes in Gyanvapi verdict and why court held plea by Hindus is maintainable

New Delhi, Sep 12: A district court in Varanasi today, September 12 held that the writ petition filed by the Hindu petitioners is maintainable. The court also said that the matter would be next heard on September 22.

The court said that the main argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff have not sought declaration or injunction over the property, the court said.

The plaintiffs are only demanding the right to worship Shringaar Gauri and other visible and invisible deities which were being worshipped incessantly till 1993 and after 1993 till now once a year under the regulation of Uttar Pradesh. Hence the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not operate as a bar on this suit.

The suit of the plaintiffs is limited and confined to the right to worship as a civil, fundamental right as well as customary and religious right. I therefore agree with the counsel for the plaintiffs, the district judge said.

The defendants (Muslim side) had argued that the suit of the plaintiffs is bared by Section 85 of the Waqf Act. 1995 because the subject matter of the suit is a Waqf property and only a Waqf Tribunal in Lucknow has the right to decide this suit.

The court said that it has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not Muslims and are strangers to the Waqf created at the disputed property and the relief claimed in the suit is not covered under the Sections Sections 33, 35, 47, 48, 51, 54, 61, 64, 67, 72 & 73 of the Waqf Act. Hence, suit of the plaintiffs (Hindu side) is not barred by Section 85 of the Waqf Act 1995.

To the arguments by the Muslim side that the disputed property is housed in the Gyanvapi Mosque. The court said that the plaintiffs are not claiming ownership over the disputed property. They are only seeking a right to worship there. They have not filed the suit for the declaration that the disputed property is a Temple.

Further the court took into note that that the plaintiffs were worshipping

Maa Sringaar Gauri, Lord Hanuman, Lord Ganesh at the disputed place incessantly since a long time till 1993. After 1993 they were allowed to worship there only once a year. The plaintiffs said that worship took place regularly even after August 15 1947. Hence the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 does not operate as the bar on the suit is not barred by Section 9 of the Act.

Five Hindu women had filed a petition seeking the right to worship in the Gyanvapi Mosque in the city which is next to the famous Kashi Vishwanath Temple. They sought permission to perform Hindu rituals in a part of the Mosque complex saying that a Hindu temple once stood on the site. The Muslim side had urged the court to reject the petition.

The court had earlier ordered a videography survey of the complex. The survey was completed on May 16 and the report was submitted on May 19.

The Hindu side has claimed that a Shilling was found during the survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque-Shringar Gauri complex. This has been contested by the Muslim side.

District judge, A K Vishvesha today rejected the Anjuman Committee's plea challenging the Hindu worshipper's request for permission for daily worship of Hindu deities in the Gyanvapi Mosque.