New Delhi: A district judge in Varanasi on Wednesday (January 31) – his last working day before retirement – allowed Hindus to worship inside a sealed basement of the the Mughal-era Gyanvapi Masjid in a decision that could have far-reaching consequences in the Gyanvapi Masjid-Kashi Vishwanath Temple legal matter that is being heard in courts at all three levels of the judiciary.
Now, Hindu priests and Hindu devotees visiting the Kashi Vishwanath Temple would also get access to visit and perform puja inside the tehkhana of the mosque.
The Hindu plaintiffs, who are seeking religious rights within the mosque as well as its ultimate possession from Muslims, dubbed the court’s order as a victory and equated it to the controversial unlocking of the Babri Masjid in 1986.
The Babri Masjid was eventually demolished by a mob of Hindu activists assembled at the call of members of the Sangh parivar on December 6, 1992.
The caretakers of the Gyanvapi Masjid were stunned by the district court order and said the court accepted claims made by the temple side without seeking any evidence.
The Varanasi court order comes days after the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in its survey report of the Gyanvapi Masjid claimed that a “large Hindu temple” existed there prior to the construction of the existing structure – i.e., the mosque – and that parts of the temple were modified and used in the construction of the Islamic place of worship.
District judge Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha directed the district administration to make arrangements for puja and other Hindu activities inside the southern tehkhana, or cellar, of the mosque within seven days.
Judge Vishvesha directed the administration to conduct the puja and “rag-bhog” of the “idols” inside the tehkhana through a priest appointed by the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust, which manages the adjoining Kashi Vishwanath Mandir.
The court passed the order on an application filed by local priest Shailendra Kumar Pathak of the Acharya Ved Vyas Peeth temple, who had sought rights to worship the Maa Shringar Gauri and other alleged visible and invisible deities he claimed were in the cellar of the mosque.
The caretakers of the mosque rejected all claims made by Pathak that there were idols kept inside the previously sealed cellar and that his ancestors used to carry out puja inside the cellar.
Judge Vishvesha, however, ruled in favour of the Hindu plaintiff and directed the district administration to make the necessary iron fencing for the purpose of puja.
The district magistrate had on January 24 completed the process of taking over the cellar after the court on January 17 directed the district magistrate to keep the cellar secure and appointed him as its receiver.
In his application, Pathak claimed that there were idols kept in the southern cellar of the mosque and that his ancestors as priests conducted worship of the idols kept there.
However, Pathak further claimed that “Pujari Vyas ji,” or Somnath Vyas, his maternal grandfather, was prevented from entering the barricaded area of the mosque after December 1993.
The rag-bhog and sanskar rituals were also stopped, Pathak claimed.
He claimed that ancient Hindu idols and several other religious items linked to the Hindu religion were inside the cellar. “It is necessary to carry out regular puja of the murtis [idols] inside the tehkhana,” he said.
The management committee of the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, which manages the Gyanvapi mosque, vehemently denied the claims in court.
The committee in written applications told the court that no member of the Vyas family ever carried out puja in the cellar.
Therefore, the question of stopping someone from conducting puja from December 1993 does not arise, the committee said.
“No alleged idol was ever present at the site,” the committee said and denied Pathak’s claims that his family had ancestral occupation of the cellar. The cellar has always been under the occupation of the mosque committee, the caretakers said.
Vishnu Shankar Jain, one of the lawyers for the temple side in the matter, hailed the court order as historic.
“District court Varanasi has created history today,” Jain tweeted on X (formerly Twitter).
Talking to reporters, he said this was the first step for Hindus towards gaining ownership of the mosque.
“Justice K.M Pandey during the Ram Mandir movement ordered the opening of the locks [of the Babri Masjid] on February 1, 1986. I see this order in a similar vein. This is the turning point in this case. It is a historic order,” Jain said.
S.M. Yasin, joint secretary of the masjid committee, was dismayed by the court order.
“Now we have no hope of justice in this country,” Yasin told The Wire.
Yasin rejected the claims made by the temple side and said that no puja had ever been held in the tehkhana and that there are no idols there. “There are only bamboo poles there.”
“These are all lies. They have no evidence. The court passed the order without any evidence,” Yasin continued to say.
He also questioned why the judge did not seek a factual position from the district administration, which had sealed the cellar and barricaded the premises in 1995 on the directions of the Supreme Court.
“The cellar has always been in our possession,” said Yasin, who objected to the breach of the old barricade.
The lawyers of the mosque side also said that the Deen Mohammad suit of 1937 did not make any mention of a Vyas family occupying the tehkhana.
Union Minister Giriraj Singh, commenting on the development, said that just two cellars of the Gyanvapi mosque had been opened and the others were still left.
“Earlier too, Hindus offered puja there. But it was later prevented. The court has not given something new,” he said.
Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav posted on X: “Due process has to be maintained while following any court order. The Varanasi Court fixed a 7 day period for it. What we are seeing now is a concerted effort to go beyond the due process and prevent any legal recourse that can be taken.”
The next hearing is on February 8, by when the mosque side can file their objections.
