The Varanasi District Court on Monday dismissed a petition questioning the hearing of a petition seeking permission for daily worship. Shringar Gauri and other deities whose idols are located on the outer wall of the temple Gyanvapi Mosque Judge AK Vishvesh disposes of 3 questions before arriving at his decision
1 Whether litigation is prohibited by the Places of Worship Act 1991?
What the command says:
“. . . the plaintiff has not sought declaration or injunction on the property / land plot no. 9130. They have not sought relief for conversion of the place of worship from mosque to temple. The plaintiff only seeks Maa Shringar Gauri and other scenes and are demanding the right to worship invisible deities, who were being worshiped under the regulation of the state of Uttar Pradesh once in a year till 1993 and since 1993. Hence, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act , 1991 does not act as a stay on the plaintiff’s suit. The plaintiff’s suit is limited and limited to the civil rights and fundamental rights as well as the right to worship as customary and religious rights. I agree with the learned counsel for the plaintiffs am”
“…the plaintiffs…are not claiming ownership over the disputed property. They have also not filed suit to declare that the disputed property is a temple.
“. . . in the present case, the plaintiffs are seeking the right to worship Maa Shringar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman on the disputed property, therefore, the civil court has the right to decide the matter.
“Thus, according to the plaintiffs, he regularly worshiped Maa Shringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman at the disputed place even after 15th August, 1947. Hence, on the suit of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, once upon a time. The suit between the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not barred by section 9 of the Act.”
What is barred by section 85 of the suit? waqf act 1995?
What does the order say (on AIM’s claim that it is Gyanvapi) waqf Property):
“I have come to the conclusion that the bar under section 85 of the Waqf Act does not operate in the present case as the plaintiffs are non-Muslims and strangers to the alleged waqfs built on the disputed property and the relief claimed in the suit is not Covered under sections 33, 35, 47, 48, 51, 54, 61, 64, 67, 72 and 73 of the Waqf Act. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is not barred by section 85 of the Waqf Act 1995.
Has the suit been stayed by the Uttar Pradesh Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983?
What the command says:
“From a perusal of the (above) provisions of the Act, it is clear that there is no bar by the Act in respect of a suit claiming the right to worship idols installed in the endowment within, or outside the premises of the temple. Therefore, Respondent No. 4 failed to prove that the plaintiff’s suit is barred by the UP Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983.
1 Whether litigation is prohibited by the Places of Worship Act 1991?
What the command says:
“. . . the plaintiff has not sought declaration or injunction on the property / land plot no. 9130. They have not sought relief for conversion of the place of worship from mosque to temple. The plaintiff only seeks Maa Shringar Gauri and other scenes and are demanding the right to worship invisible deities, who were being worshiped under the regulation of the state of Uttar Pradesh once in a year till 1993 and since 1993. Hence, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act , 1991 does not act as a stay on the plaintiff’s suit. The plaintiff’s suit is limited and limited to the civil rights and fundamental rights as well as the right to worship as customary and religious rights. I agree with the learned counsel for the plaintiffs am”
“…the plaintiffs…are not claiming ownership over the disputed property. They have also not filed suit to declare that the disputed property is a temple.
“. . . in the present case, the plaintiffs are seeking the right to worship Maa Shringar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman on the disputed property, therefore, the civil court has the right to decide the matter.
“Thus, according to the plaintiffs, he regularly worshiped Maa Shringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman at the disputed place even after 15th August, 1947. Hence, on the suit of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, once upon a time. The suit between the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not barred by section 9 of the Act.”
What is barred by section 85 of the suit? waqf act 1995?
What does the order say (on AIM’s claim that it is Gyanvapi) waqf Property):
“I have come to the conclusion that the bar under section 85 of the Waqf Act does not operate in the present case as the plaintiffs are non-Muslims and strangers to the alleged waqfs built on the disputed property and the relief claimed in the suit is not Covered under sections 33, 35, 47, 48, 51, 54, 61, 64, 67, 72 and 73 of the Waqf Act. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is not barred by section 85 of the Waqf Act 1995.
Has the suit been stayed by the Uttar Pradesh Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983?
What the command says:
“From a perusal of the (above) provisions of the Act, it is clear that there is no bar by the Act in respect of a suit claiming the right to worship idols installed in the endowment within, or outside the premises of the temple. Therefore, Respondent No. 4 failed to prove that the plaintiff’s suit is barred by the UP Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983.