It was a district court order in Uttar Pradesh in 1986 that “caused a reaction to the link leading to the overthrow” of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya by Hindutva instigators five years later. This is what Judge SU Khan saw in the Supreme Court of Allahabad in the 2010 Ayodhya case.
The 1986 order led to the release of the keys to the Babri Masjid, which was “causing controversy at the national (international) level,” Khanyi notes in his sentencing. Before that no one except Ayodhya and Faizabad knew about the dispute.
The statement summarizes the pattern seen in many disputes about places of worship: Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathurra, Qutb Minar in Delhi and Kamal-ud-Din mosque in Madhya Pradesh.
Courts, especially the lower courts, have played a significant role in escalating these conflicts.
Unlocking the keys to Babri
This first appeared in Ayodhya. Decades after 1949, when the image of the Hindu god Ram was mysteriously placed inside the Babri Masjid, only a few clergymen were allowed to enter the ritual to perform rituals. The public could only watch without the grill.
However, in 1986, a non-literal attorney general filed an appeal with the judge of the Faizabad district court, KN Pandey, on January 31, 1986. The appeal was granted a day later. The judge ordered the gates to be opened for Hindus to worship. Just minutes after the order was passed, the gates of Babri Masjid were opened.
The first parties to the claim were unaware of these procedures, with the exception of one, who was not allowed to be taken to court. The district magistrate and the police superintendent who were present at the court said there would be no problem with the locks on.
In 2010, Justice SU Khan expressed shock at a series of incidents, in which an appeal was lodged with a “stranger” who was not “and the placement of one of the parties” was rejected by mistake “because it” was not “. one to oppose the appeal ”.
He noted that there was no reason for such a situation.
Archaeological research in Gyanvapi
As for Hindutva’s claims about the Mughal-era Gyanvapi mosque, two cases before the Varanasi courts have sparked controversy.
The first case was filed in Varanasi Magistrate’s Court in 1991 by volunteers for the “Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar”. They claimed that the Gyanvapi mosque housed the temple and asked permission to worship on the site. The court, in 1997, ruled that certain portions of the petition were blocked by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.
This practice was passed during the pilgrimage to the Ayodhya temple and provided for the religious character of the area as it was on August 15, 1947, to be preserved.
On appeal, the district judge set aside the order in September 1998, stating that these cases could not be settled without evidence. Later that year, the Allahabad Supreme Court suspended the proceedings.
Staying active until 2020. However, subject to a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that the stay could not be valid for more than six months unless the suspension order was explicitly extended, the appellate court where the dispute was expected to begin hearing the case. case again based on a petition filed by the plaintiffs. In February 2020, the Supreme Court of Allahabad suspended the proceedings. In March 2020, he retained his sentence.
Following this, the court heard the case again. In April 2021, he ordered the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a search to determine if the temple was located in a mosque. Scroll.inside they have stated that this test may be used to make a special claim under the Law on Places of Worship, exempt from “ancient monuments” – buildings or monuments of historical interest and have existed for more than 100 years – from a legal point of view. .
The Supreme Court of Allahabad, in September 2021, reprimanded the court for its decision and set aside the archeological order.
“Respect and respect were worth such training [of waiting for the Allahabad High Court verdict] expected in the lower court, but for unknown reasons, no studies were taken, ”the court noted.
Gyanvapi Video
In August 2021, while the case was pending before the Supreme Court of Allahabad, a second application was filed with the People’s Court in Varanasi. It called for the right to perform rituals in the Gyanvapi area and to preserve “the Hindu gods Maa Shringar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman and other visible and invisible gods” who claimed to be present.
On April 8, 2022, a local judge appointed Ajay Kumar as attorney general to conduct a video inquiry into the mosque and to present it to the court. You can also ask for police assistance, if needed. The Muslim side opposes Kumar’s appointment, as his name has been suggested by the plaintiffs.
On May 12, the court refused to replace Kumar but appointed two more lawyers to assist him in the video. It instructed district officials to break the keys if necessary and to file a preliminary information report against the perpetrators. It also requested that the report be submitted by 17 May.
Former Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Amar Saran said Quint that this investigation violates the Law on Places of Worship, which prohibits attempts to transform a place of worship. Therefore, “lower courts are involved in illegal activities,” he said.
Then on Monday, before the report was filed, at a meeting where mosque representatives were not present, the court noted a proposal by Hindu petitioners that a moving idol – the Hindu god Shiva – had been found in the water. itanki. Based on this, he ordered that part of the Gyanvapi mosque be sealed. It also said that only 20 Muslims would be allowed to pray in the mosque.
The mosque’s side has argued with the claim, claiming that the building is actually a source. The next day, the attorney general was also removed for publishing information in the newspapers. The remaining two commissioners will report on May 19.
The Islamist case has challenged the study of a mosque video in front of the Allahabad Supreme Court. However, the high court rejected their appeal in April 2021, stating that the court’s order “could not make any decision and that is the kind of procedure, which will lead to a home inspection report”.
The Gyanvapi mosque’s governing body appealed against the ruling by the Allahabad Supreme Court in the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court lifted any restrictions on Muslims entering the mosque. However, it instructed the government to protect the property found as a result of the investigation.
Matra’s case
The Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura, meanwhile, is the subject of more than a dozen cases in various lower courts in Matrara and in the Supreme Court of Allahabad. Several Hindus claim that the mosque was built on the site of the birth of the Hindu god Krishna. Hindus want land and the right to worship in a mosque until their applications are terminated.
The first of these cases was launched in September 2020, after the Ayodhya conflict ended in favor of Hindus in 2019. Six volunteers, through lawyer Ranjana Agnihotri, filed a complaint in the Matra court requesting that the mosque be removed.
Agnihotri’s appeal was rejected in September 2020. One month later, however, the district judge decided to reconsider his position. The Matra district court will rule on the filing of the complaint on May 19.
Another complaint was filed in December 2020 by several representatives and organizations such as the United Hindu Front and Dharm Rakhsha Sangh Vrindaban. The next due date for this complaint is 1 July.
In January 2021, the Supreme Court of Allahabad dismissed the written application before seeking the removal of the mosque, as the applicant was not present. However, in March 2022, it returned the application, noting that the refund request was lodged immediately. Listed the July petition.
Most of the complaints have been in court for over a year and a half unless the court rejects the appeals – although the Places of Worship Act prohibits such cases. Besides, in the ruling of Ayodhya in 2019, the Supreme Court also noted that the courts “could not receive claims from the actions of Mughal rulers against Hindu religious sites”.
Responding to a plaintiff who has filed an appeal with the Allahabad High Court complaining that their application was not finalized by a Matra judge, the Allahabad High Court on May 12 ordered the lower court to compile several cases filed in connection with the Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute and immediately. decide on them, perhaps within four months.
Recently, based on a court order in the Gyanvapi dispute, several petitioners have requested a search of the same video at the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura, claiming that it retains the Hindu idols of Muslims “they want to get rid of”. On May 18, the Matra district court upheld the appeal.
The court will decide on these petitions in the coming months.
Qutb Minar
In Madhya Pradesh, the high court on May 11 issued a statement on the petitions of a Hindu group opposing the 2003 order of the Indian Archaeological Survey that allowed Hindus and Muslims to use the Kamal-ud-Din mosque on different days. The temple is said to be Hindu by the temple of the goddess Saraswati called Bojshala and by a mosque of Muslims.
In Delhi, a Saket court on May 24 will hear a case against Qutb Minar, which claims that many Hindu and Jain temples were demolished to make way for a mosque inside the monument. For the second time, the issue is being debated in the courts. It was first heard by a civil court, which rejected the appeal in November 2021, stating that past wrongdoing “could not be the basis for disturbing the peace of the present and our future”.
In stark contrast to these earlier examples, where the courts have always encouraged civil strife and allowed it to grow, it is a serious step taken to end similar efforts in connection with the Taj Mahal in Agra. On May 12, the Allahabad Supreme Court rejected the public interest filed by Rajneesh Singh, an official of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the head of the Ayodhya media unit. He requested archeology at the Taj Mahal. The court ruled that these issues were “unfair” and that the best thing left to historians was.
This article was first published in Scroll.in and has been republished here with permission.
