The Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath dispute in Varanasi is a complex blend of historical claims, religious sentiments, and legal debates. Centered on allegations of a demolished temple, the controversy gained renewed attention with Supreme Court interventions under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Recent judgments highlight efforts to balance communal harmony, historical narratives, and constitutional values amid escalating litigation.
NEW DELHI : The Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, lies close to the iconic Kashi Vishwanath temple, built in 1780 by Queen Ahilyabai Holkar of Indore. The Kashi Vishwanath temple, dedicated to Lord Shiva, holds great religious importance for Hindus. However, the origins of the Gyanvapi mosque have sparked controversy and legal disputes over centuries.
The Early History of the Gyanvapi Site
It is claimed that the Gyanvapi mosque was constructed on the remains of an earlier temple, known as the Vishweshwara temple, dedicated to Lord Shiva. Historical accounts suggest that this temple was first destroyed in the 12th century by Qutub-ud-din Aibak, a general of Ghurid Sultan Mohammad Gauri. Later, during the 13th century, Princess Raziyat-ud-din of the Delhi Sultanate ordered a mosque to be built on the site, halting attempts to rebuild the temple.
Reconstruction and Destruction in the Mughal Era
Under Emperor Akbar’s rule in the 16th century, a priest named Narayan Bhatta rebuilt the Vishweshwara temple. However, in 1669, Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb ordered the destruction of the temple, and the Gyanvapi mosque was built on its ruins.
Inside the Kashi Vishwanath temple today, there is a statue of Nandi, the sacred bull of Lord Shiva. Typically, Nandi faces the shiv lingam (a symbolic representation of Lord Shiva) in temples. At Kashi Vishwanath, however, Nandi faces the Gyanvapi mosque. This unusual alignment has led to claims that a shiv lingam is hidden within the mosque’s premises. Such claims have fueled petitions by Hindus from 1991 to 2022 seeking access to pray within the mosque.
The Politicization of Temples
![[Gyanvapi Case]](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Gyanvapi-mosque1-770x433-png-770%C3%97431-10-10-2024_08_25_PM-1.png?resize=761%2C424&ssl=1)
In 1984, a significant turning point occurred when the first ‘religious parliament’ of Hindus convened in New Delhi. A resolution was passed by 558 Hindu seers to reclaim three important Hindu shrines where mosques allegedly stood: Ayodhya (birthplace of Lord Ram), Mathura (birthplace of Lord Krishna), and Varanasi (where the Vishweshwara temple was allegedly destroyed). This movement gained momentum throughout the 1980s and 1990s, with the Babri Masjid-Ayodhya dispute becoming its focal point.
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
To prevent further disputes over religious sites, the Indian government introduced the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act in 1991. This law prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from the form it held on August 15, 1947. However, the Babri Masjid-Ayodhya dispute was exempted from the Act. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) supported this exemption but requested that it also be extended to the Kashi Vishwanath and Krishna Janmabhoomi disputes. This request was not accepted.
After the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, a popular slogan emerged among Hindu groups:
“Ayodhya toh bas jhaanki hai, Kashi, Mathura baaki hai”—which translates to “Ayodhya is just the beginning, Kashi and Mathura remain.”
Legal Developments in the Gyanvapi Dispute
The first legal petition regarding the Gyanvapi mosque was filed in 1991 by priests from Varanasi. They sought permission to pray within the mosque and requested the transfer of its land to Hindus, claiming it was built over the original Vishweshwara temple.
The mosque management committee argued that such petitions violated the Places of Worship Act. However, their challenge was dismissed by a lower court in 1998. The matter then went to the Allahabad High Court, which stayed the proceedings in the same year.
The case remained dormant until the resolution of the Ayodhya land dispute in 2019, reigniting interest in the Gyanvapi case.
The Ayodhya Verdict and Its Impact
The Ayodhya land dispute revolved around the ownership of the land where the Babri Masjid once stood. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court divided the land equally among three parties: the Nirmohi Akhara, the Sunni Waqf Board, and the deity Ram Lalla (Lord Ram). Dissatisfied with this decision, all parties appealed to the Supreme Court.
In 2019, the Supreme Court granted the disputed land to the deity Ram Lalla, allowing the construction of a Ram temple at the site.This landmark judgment set a precedent for other religious disputes, including the Gyanvapi case.
Supreme Court Judgment in Ayodhya Title Dispute (2019)
In 2018, the Supreme Court of India had decided not to refer the Ayodhya title dispute to a Constitution Bench. However, in January 2019, then-Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, used his administrative powers to assign the case to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench.
This bench included Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and Sharad Bobde. After initial mediation attempts between the three parties failed, the Court began daily hearings from August 2019. On October 19th, 2019, the Bench reserved its judgment.
Finally, on November 9th, just before Chief Justice Gogoi’s retirement, the Court delivered a unanimous judgment in favor of Shri Ram Virajman, awarding the disputed land title to him.
The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to allocate another plot of land in Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque. Construction of the Ram temple began in March 2020, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi laying the foundation stone for the project.
The judgment also mentioned the importance of the Places of Worship Act, 1991,
“As a way of healing “the wounds of the past.”
The Court stated that,
“Except for the Ram Janmabhoomi case, courts should not allow history to be used as a tool to ignite conflicts over places of worship.”
READ JUDGEMENT
Petition Filed in Varanasi Civil Court to Survey Gyanvapi Mosque
In December 2019, shortly after the Ayodhya verdict, a fresh petition was filed in a Varanasi Civil Court seeking an archaeological survey of the Gyanvapi mosque’s origins.
The petitioner appeared as a ‘next friend’ for Swayambhu Jyotirling Bhagwan Vishweshwar, the deity at Kashi Vishwanath. The Civil Court in Varanasi reopened the matter in 2021, despite a stay by the Allahabad High Court in 2020.
In April 2021, the Civil Judge ordered an Archaeological Survey of India investigation into the mosque’s origins, which was challenged by the mosque’s Management Committee.
Writ Petition Filed Challenging Constitutionality of the 1991 Act
In October 2020, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
Section 2 defines the Act’s scope, Section 3 criminalizes the conversion of a place of worship’s religious character, and Section 4 prohibits courts from investigating changes to the character of places of worship after August 15, 1947.
The petition argued that the Act violates the Constitution’s principles of secularism and bars judicial review, a basic feature of the Constitution. It also contended that mosques built on temples should not be valid under Muslim personal law. The case remains pending before the Court.
READ THE PETITION
Challenges to Gyanvapi Mosque Survey Reached the Supreme Court
On May 13th, 2022, the Gyanvapi mosque’s Management Committee challenged the videographic survey at the Supreme Court, arguing that it violated the Places of Worship Act. The Supreme Court refused to stay the survey but agreed to list the matter for hearings.
During the survey, a shivlingam was allegedly found, and the Varanasi Civil Court ordered the area to be sealed to protect it. The mosque’s Management Committee later claimed the structure was a fountain.
Supreme Court Orders Temporary Protection for the Shivlingam
On May 17th, 2022, the Supreme Court, led by Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and P.S. Narasimha, ordered the protection of the shivlingam found at the mosque but clarified that Muslim devotees could still offer namaz.
This order was part of an effort to maintain balance and avoid communal tensions. The Court also stated that it would hear further proceedings in the case on May 19th, 2022. On the same day, allegations of biased survey conduct led to the removal of Mr. Mishra as Advocate Commissioner.
READ ORDER
Survey Committee’s Findings
On May 19th, 2022, the Survey Committee submitted its reports to the Varanasi Civil Court. The reports found debris of Hindu temples on the mosque’s northern and western sides, with Hindu symbols and iconography visible on pillars in the mosque’s basement. These findings fueled further controversy, with petitioners claiming they were remnants of Maa Shringar Gauri idols.
Proceedings of Fresh Petition Filed by Five Hindu Women
In August 2021, five Hindu women filed a petition in the Varanasi Civil Court seeking permission to worship Hindu idols at the Gyanvapi mosque. The women were affiliated with the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh. On April 8th, 2022, a videographic survey of the mosque began to determine the presence of these idols. Despite protests from the mosque’s Management Committee, the survey continued.
On May 20th, the Supreme Court transferred the case to a District Judge, directing that the challenges to the maintainability of the Hindu women’s petition be prioritized. The District Judge was tasked with considering whether the survey findings could be used in the case.
Varanasi District Court Begins Hearings
On May 23rd, 2022, the Varanasi District Court started hearings in the Gyanvapi dispute. The District Court agreed to consider the challenge to the maintainability of the Hindu women’s petition and ordered that both parties file complaints regarding the survey commission’s report.
Supreme Court Defers to District Court on Gyanvapi Plea
On July 18th, 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea requesting permission to conduct ‘puja’ and ‘darshan’ on the Gyanvapi mosque premises. The plea also asked for a ground-penetrating radar survey and carbon dating of the shivling found at the mosque. The petitioners claimed possession of the shivling, but the mosque management insisted that it was a fountain.
Varanasi District Court Delivers Judgment on Gyanvapi Plea
On August 24th, 2022, the Varanasi District Court heard arguments from both sides and reserved its judgment. On September 12th, 2022, the District Judge rejected the Waqf Board’s argument that the Hindu women’s petition should be dismissed, and directed that the matter be heard on September 22nd, 2022.
READ ORDER
This ongoing legal battle surrounding the Gyanvapi mosque continues to be a subject of intense public and legal debate, with implications for religious and communal harmony in India.
PRESENT DAY SCENARIO OF THE DISPUTE UNDER THE PLACES OF WORKSHIP ACT 1991
In May 2022, during a hearing about allowing a survey of the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud made an important observation. He stated that,
“Determining the “religious character” of a place of worship was not restricted under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. While the “religious character” of such places can be identified, it cannot be changed or converted.”
Fast forward to November 2024, deadly clashes erupted in Sambhal after a district court ordered a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. This court directive caused significant unrest in the region. Around the same time, another district court issued a notice in a civil case.
The case involved a claim that a Hindu temple existed beneath the dargah of the famous Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer, sparking further controversy.
On December 6, 2024, yet another district court directed the registration of a suit that questioned whether a Hindu temple existed beneath the Atala Mosque in Jaunpur. The mosque’s committee immediately challenged this order in the Allahabad High Court, escalating the matter to a higher judicial level.
In response, on December 7, 2024, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna took a significant step. He constituted a Special Bench to address the petition filed against the Jaunpur court’s order. This Special Bench included Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan. The case was scheduled for hearing on December 12, 2024.
As the hearing date approached, various groups and individuals filed intervention applications in support of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. These included retired bureaucrats, Members of Parliament Thol Thirumavalavan and Manoj Kumar Jha, the Indian Union of Muslim League, the management committee of Shahi Masjid Eidgah in Mathura, and the All India Lawyer’s Union, among others. They argued for upholding and enforcing the provisions of the Act, emphasizing its importance in maintaining communal harmony.
READ THE APPLICATION
On December 12, 2024, the Special Bench issued a significant ruling. It stayed the registration of any new lawsuits demanding surveys of places of worship until further notice. Additionally, the court granted the Union government four weeks to file a counter-affidavit, giving it time to present its position on the matter. To ensure smooth proceedings, the court also appointed nodal counsels for the case.
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Places of Worship Act.1991
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE