Confirmation that Hindu groups are not prohibited in places of 1991 of The Varanasi District Court said on Monday that the law of worship suits Pursuit of the right to worship inside the Gianvapi Mosque can be maintained.
“Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, even after August 15, 1947 they worshiped Ma Srinagar Gauri, Lord Ganesh and Lord Hanuman daily. up to me year 1993. If such disagreement is established, the suit will not be prohibited under Section 4 of the places of The Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991,” the order stated.
The court was considering the civil suits Submitted by four Hindus women Pursuit of the right to worship the deity, Maa Shringar Gauri, within the Gyanvapi Mosque complex. In a 26-page order, District Judge AK Vishvesha . dismissed challenge to civil suits By the Anzman Mosque Committee.
The appearance of lawyer Marajuddin Siddiq for The mosque told The Indian Express that the matter will be appealed to the Allahabad High Court.
the places of The law of worship prohibits conversion of religious character of Which place of Worship as it was on fifteenth day of August 1947. The mosque argued that the 1991 law prevents civil action seeking the right to worship in Mosque buildings. Hindus side He argued that until 1993, regular Worship of Let Maa Shringar Gauri in The “back side of Jianfabe in Ishan Kun. “Since 1993, they said, the district administration of Varanasi has restricted entry only once year.
In paragraph 43 of The case, it was mentioned that the worshipers of Lord Shiva used to perform daily puja and worship of Maa Sringar Gauri and other deities inside the ancient temple continuously until 1990 when the government during the Ayodhya movement of Uttar Pradesh to please Muslims put restrictions in Daily Pooja and since 1993 the state administration has been operating under oral orders of The state government allows worshipers perform Pooja only on Fourth (fourth) day of Vasantik Navratra in Chitra,” take note.
the classroom of The challenge To maintainability means the case must be heard now on advantage in the details. The petitioners will have to lead Evidence to prove the situation of Gianfabe Mosque as it once existed on August 15, 1947.
“At this point, averages made in The complaint is presented and the plaintiffs have the right to do so prove “It averages them through convincing evidence,” the command said.
Quoted from the 2019 Supreme Court ruling in In the Ayodhya case, the Varanasi court said that the existence of Hindu deities cannot be eliminated by destruction of idols. “Destruction of idol no result in ending of Pious purpose and therefore endowment. Even where the idol is destroyed or existence of The idol is intermittent or completely absent, and the legal personality established by the endowment remains,” the Varanasi court quoted from the Supreme Court ruling.
The mosque was also He argued that the civil suits by Hindus side banned since board of Trustees under the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Act, 1983, have never claimed possession or ‘taken any step for appropriate darshan, puja and performance of rituals’ within the sanctuary. Refusing to delve into the question at this point, the court noted that Hindu plaintiffs had moved the court since the council began of trustees” failed to me perform its duties” under the law.
court also Refusal to accept the argument from the Muslim side The Gianfapi Mosque is registered in the name of Endowment No. 100 in Varanasi Newspaper on On the grounds that the notice in the newspaper is just revenue record and “does not generate address”.
“in viewthis argument of Defendant No. 4 (the mosque) does not have much water because the plaintiffs are only claiming the right to worship in the disputed property. that they want To worship Maa Sringar Gauri and other visible and invisible deities with Claiming that they even worshiped there year 1993 and the plaintiffs do not claim property over disputed property. they have also He did not file a lawsuit for Declaration that disputed property It is a temple,” the command came.
On May 20, emphasizing “complexity of Related issues in Civil suit,” the Supreme Court referred a case that was pending before a civil judge (Supreme Circuit) to the district judge. media He was not allowed to view the proceedings. The civil judge had authorized a survey of Gyanvapi mosque complex where it was said to be shivling found.
Engman voluntarily moved the Supreme Committee to challenge the poll. In July, a three-judge judge benchwhich includes judges DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and PS Narasimha, said she would wait for District Court decision before the intervention.