Last Updated on February 8, 2024 by News Desk

Issue:

Regarding the religious nature and ownership of the Gyanvapi property in Varanasi, the Gyanvapi case offers a convoluted legal issue. The main source of contention is the dispute between the Hindu and Muslim groups on the historical use and ownership of the location, with a special emphasis on the Gyanvapi Mosque’s southern cellar, or tekhana. The latest developments in the case have prompted inquiries about the State of Uttar Pradesh’s role, the validity of the interim orders, and the application of earlier rulings.

Facts of the Case:

The main point of contention is a district court ruling on January 31 that permits Hindu prayers at the Gyanvapi Mosque’s tekhana. The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, speaking on behalf of the Muslim side, contests this ruling, claiming that Muslims have always owned the mosque’s structure. It is the Hindu side, on the other hand, that asserts historical usage rights, noting Hindu prayers held in the tekhana up until 1993, when the state government allegedly interfered.

Arguments Presented by Parties:

The Muslim counsel challenges the State’s counsel General’s attendance in court and raises concerns about the relationship between the state and the Hindu parties. He challenges the validity of the January 31 order, claiming that it was issued improperly and that it unintentionally approved some of the lawsuit. Conversely, proponents of the Hindu viewpoint contend that the tekhana has historically been used for Hindu prayers and reject the idea that the State must be beseeched as a party. They argue that the court’s inherent authority authorized the decision from January 31.

Judgement Delivered by Court:

The Court highlights the necessity to ascertain possession at that point of the 1993 barricade at the mosque and raises uncertainties about the relevance of past rulings. While acknowledging the use of the court’s intrinsic authority, it casts doubt on the validity of the January 31 ruling. The dispute’s resolution remained unresolved as the subject was postponed until February 12 for more hearings.

Written By: Nikita Shankar @nikitaashankar