The Allahabad High Court gave a special order today to the Uttar Pradesh government, asking it to preserve the Gyanvapi structure. The court said that there should be no damage or new construction until further instructions from it. At the same time, the high court did not put any ban on worship at the Vyasji ka tahkhanah.
For the first time in 30 years, puja was conducted at the basement of the Gyanvapi mosque, which historians consensually say was constructed on a partially demolished Vishveshwara Temple, only a part of which was refurbished under the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor project by the Narendra Modi government.
The next hearing, necessitated by a petition by the Muslim body — Anjuman Intizamia Masajid — that manages the Gyanvapi mosque, will be on 6 February.
The high court did not entertain the interim stay application; it instead asked the mosque committee to amend its appeal by 6 February. The court wanted to probe why there was such a hurry on the part of the Varanasi district court judge, who had ordered an archaeological survey of Gyanvapi, in appointing the receiver.
This was the court’s response to the submission by the lawyer of the Muslim side that the application of the Hindu side was allowed on 17 January by appointing the Varanasi district magistrate as the receiver. And then, the Muslim litigants argued, the Varanasi court ordered puja inside Gyanvapi on 31 January.
The high court noted while there were four basements in the Gyanvapi Mosque cellar, there is no claim as to which basement the Hindu side wanted to pray in. The Muslim side told the court that the Hindu side was demanding one of the four basements.
The court told the Muslim side while they might have wanted to challenge the order of 17 January which mandated the appointment of the district magistrate as the receiver, they mixed it up with the order of puja dated 31 January, a consequential order. Unless the first order was challenged, challenging the second was not maintainable, the court told the Muslim side.
The court told the Muslim side that after the appointment of the receiver, they filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (rejection of the plaintiff). The Muslim side’s case is not that the application should be heard first, the court remarked.
Advocate SFA Naqvi representing the Muslim side said that their concern was about the action taken by the district magistrate within 7 h whereas he was given 7 days to act. The side promised to present the amended application but wanted a stay on the order and status quo, which the high court refused.
Further, the court observed, that the Muslim side had forwarded their plea through a supplementary affidavit. This is not a writ petition, the court remarked.
The court then asked the advocate general of Uttar Pradesh what the current situation on the disputed ground was. The state told the court that it was maintaining law and order there.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the Hindu side, opposed the petition, saying that the Muslim side had not challenged the order of 17 January whereas the order of 31 January was correct and the appeal of the Muslim side was not worthy of being heard. The Hindu side said that there was no door in the basement. The high court urged the state government once again to maintain law and order in and around the disputed site, putting the onus on the district magistrate to oversee the security arrangements.
