“The Court stated that the worship and rituals carried out by the Vyas family in the cellar until 1993 were halted by the unlawful intervention of the State, lacking any written directive.”
On Monday, the Allahabad High Court noted strong prima facie evidence suggesting that Hindu prayers had been conducted in the southern cellar (Vyas Tehkhana) of the Gyanvapi mosque building since 1551 until their cessation in 1993. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal’s bench further remarked that, prima facie, the Uttar Pradesh government’s oral order to halt these Hindu prayers in 1993 was illegal.
The Court stated, “… a strong case for trial has been made out, but also the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the plaintiff (Hindu side). 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.”
Relying on the 1937 civil court judgment in the Din Mohammad case, the Court highlighted that the court at the time had accepted a map submitted by the State, which indicated that prayers were being offered in the cellar by the Vyas family.
The High Court also noted that a Commissioner’s report from 1996 mentioned a gate in the Gyanvapi compound being locked by Hindus. According to the Court, this indicated Hindu possession over the cellar in question, known as “Vyas Tekhana.”
“The presence of Vyas Tekhana (cellar) owned by the Vyas family in the year 1937 serves as prima facie evidence of the continuous possession claimed by the plaintiff until the year 1993,” the High Court expressed.
Moreover, the Court remarked that the Muslim party had not provided prima facie evidence to establish their possession over the cellar, at least from 1937 until 1993.
“The appellant (Muslim party) not asserting ownership of the cellar from the Vyas family after 1937 until December 1993 leads to an adverse inference against them regarding possession of the cellar. The plaintiff has prima facie succeeded in establishing their possession through the Vyas family since 1551,” the Court stated.
In light of these findings, the High Court concluded that the interim order permitting Hindu prayers in the southern cellar of the mosque did not prejudice the Muslim side.
“The appellant (Muslim side) failing to establish prima facie possession over the contested property, and the plaintiff (Hindu side) succeeding in presenting a compelling prima facie case that contradicts the appellant’s position, leads to an undeniable conclusion that preventing worship and ritual performances by devotees in the cellar would be detrimental to their interests. Prima facie, I determine that the State Government’s actions since 1993, restraining the Vyas family and devotees from conducting religious worship and rituals, represent a continuous injustice,” the Court stated.
“Upon initial examination, I conclude that the State Government’s actions since 1993, restraining the Vyas family and devotees from engaging in religious worship and rituals, constitute an ongoing injustice, as determined by the Allahabad High Court”.
The Court emphasized that a citizen’s right to freedom of religion, as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution, cannot be infringed upon by arbitrary actions of the State. This observation was made in the context of rejecting a challenge brought forth by the Muslim side against a Varanasi trial court order issued on January 31, which permitted the offering of Hindu prayers and puja in the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi Mosque.
The trial court’s order was issued during an ongoing civil court case concerning conflicting assertions regarding the religious identity of the Gyanvapi compound. In the principal lawsuit, the Hindu side has asserted that a portion of a temple within the Gyanvapi compound was demolished during the reign of the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in the 17th century.
On the contrary, the Muslim party has asserted that the mosque predates Aurangzeb’s reign and has also claimed that it underwent various modifications over time. Notably, the Hindu party contended that Hindu prayers were previously conducted by the family of Somnath Vyas in the mosque’s cellar until 1993, when the government led by Mulayam Singh Yadav purportedly intervened.
The Muslim party opposed this assertion and maintained that Muslims have always held possession over the mosque’s premises. The High Court has upheld the trial court’s ruling permitting Hindu prayers in the cellar, while the main lawsuit awaits a final judgment.
In affirming this decision, the Court dismissed the Muslim party’s argument that the January 31 order incorrectly applied Section 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court endorsed the Hindu side’s position that the January 17 order, preceding the January 31 order, unintentionally omitted mentioning the decision regarding a prayer already made by the Hindu side in a composite application to appoint a Receiver and permit Hindu prayers in the mosque’s cellar. The High Court stated that such an inadvertent omission could be rectified by invoking Section 152, CrPC, as done by the trial court.
“The order dated 31.01.2024 falls within the purview of the Court’s powers under Section 151 and 152 CPC, as it neither revises the order, nor does the Court, under the guise of invoking Section 152, provide any further relief after the judgment’s outcome had already been determined earlier,” the Court added.
Moreover, the High Court dismissed the Muslim party’s allegation of a conflict of interest in appointing a District Magistrate as the Court receiver, responsible for arranging the prayers in the cellar. “Once the District Magistrate, Varanasi, is fulfilling his duties outlined in the Temple Act, 1983, his appointment as Receiver by the Court, who must act under the Court’s direction and supervision, would not result in any conflict of interest … Furthermore, no legal or factual malice can be attributed to the District Magistrate, Varanasi, in this instance,” the Court stated.
The Court proceeded to reject the Muslim party’s appeal, asserting, “I find that allowing worship and rituals in the cellar under the supervision of the Receiver appointed by the lower court does not warrant intervention by this Court. The possession of the cellar was already assumed by the Receiver on 24.01.2024, and the worship and rituals have already commenced since 01.02.2024.”
However, the Court clarified that it has not ruled on contentions regarding whether the Hindu party’s lawsuit was time-barred or if necessary parties were omitted, as these issues were not framed by the trial court.
Senior Advocate SFA Naqvi, and advocates Syed Ahmed Faizan and Zaheer Asghar represented the Muslim side.
Advocates Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Prabhash Pandey, Pradeep Kumar Sharma, and Vineet Sankalp appeared for the Hindu side.
