The Supreme Court set to rule on whether the Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath dispute should be transferred to the Allahabad High Court. In January, a Varanasi court permitted Hindu priests to perform prayers and rituals in the southern basement of the Gyanvapi Mosque. The case has sparked significant legal and cultural debate.
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of fifteen ongoing cases related to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi Mosque dispute to the Allahabad High Court.
A bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan issued a notice regarding the plea and noted that it would consider whether High Courts should function as appellate bodies to evaluate and assess evidence.
The bench was addressing an interim application in an appeal brought by the Muslim parties against an Allahabad High Court ruling that upheld a January 31 order from a Varanasi court, which permitted Hindu parties to offer prayers in the southern cellar/basement of the Gyanvapi Mosque.
The High Court stated that it was illegal for the Uttar Pradesh government to prevent Hindu prayers through an oral order issued in 1993.
In April, the Supreme Court declined to stay the Varanasi court’s order. It instructed that the status quo at the Gyanvapi site be maintained, allowing the Hindu priest to enter from the south to conduct prayers in the cellar, while Muslims would continue to pray in the northern area, where they have their entry.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing one of the parties, argued that transferring the cases to the High Court would help prevent conflicting judgments and enable a three-judge bench to address the issue comprehensively.
In opposition, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi contended that such a transfer could set a precedent, leading to similar disputes nationwide being moved to High Courts, thereby overburdening them. He pointed out that the cases involve matters such as the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey and disputes over sealed areas of the Gyanvapi complex, which are already before higher courts.
Ahmadi further emphasized that these lawsuits likely violate the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which preserves the status of religious sites as they existed on August 15, 1947.
Ultimately, the Court decided that all related cases would be consolidated and heard together on December 17.
This matter stems from an ongoing civil court case regarding conflicting claims about the religious identity of the Gyanvapi compound. The Hindu parties assert that prayers were historically offered in the Mosque’s cellar by a family member of Somnath Vyas until 1993, when the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led government allegedly prohibited such practices.
The Muslim parties dispute this assertion, maintaining that Muslims have consistently held possession of the Mosque.
At the heart of the Gyanvapi compound dispute is the Hindu claim that a portion of an ancient temple on the site was destroyed during the reign of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in the 17th century. Conversely, the Muslim side argues that the Mosque existed prior to Aurangzeb’s rule and has undergone various modifications over time.
The Hindu plaintiffs in their suit assert that the Hindu character of the land remains unchanged, even if the temple structure was demolished on Aurangzeb’s orders to construct a mosque.
They seek the restoration of the ancient Lord Vishweshwar temple at the site and defend their 1991 suit by arguing that the dispute predates the Places of Worship Act.