SC refuses to halt survey for idols at Gyanvapi mosque

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to stop at once the survey of Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, saying the matter would have to be considered in due course.

Seeking an urgent intervention of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi pleaded for a status quo in the case pending before the Varanasi civil court, which on Thursday directed a day-to-day survey of a mosque to inspect, videography, and the collection of evidence regarding the claimed existence of Hindu deities inside the mosque located next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple.

“A survey has been directed in relation to the Varanasi property. This is covered under the Places of Worship Act. Now, the court has ordered a court commissioner to conduct a survey. This has been a mosque since time immemorial,” Ahmadi submitted.

The senior lawyer, who appeared for Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee that manages the Gyanvapi mosque, pressed for an order of status quo.

But the CJI responded: “We have not even seen the papers. We don’t even know what is the matter. I don’t know anything...how can I pass an order? I will read and then pass orders...let me see.” On a suit filed jointly by five Hindu women, the Varanasi court last month ordered an inspection of the premises through an advocate commissioner, Ajai Kumar Mishra. The civil court order was affirmed by the Allahabad high court on April 21.

Later, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee filed a plea before the civil court to remove the advocate commissioner. However, on Thursday, the Varanasi civil court ordered a full survey of the Gyanvapi mosque complex, rejecting the demands of the mosque management to limit the inquiry to certain parts of the precincts and remove the present surveyor. The civil judge retained Ajai Kumar Mishra as the advocate commissioner, who was appointed last month to carry out the survey, while adding two more lawyers, Vishal Singh and Ajay Pratap Singh to the commission that will inspect, conduct videography and collect evidence regarding the alleged existence of Hindu deities inside the mosque located next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple. It directed that Ajai Kumar Mishra and Vishal Singh will conduct the survey.

In its order, the civil judge clarified that the advocate commissioners will have the right to collect evidence from any part of the mosque complex and that no hindrance shall be caused by anyone in the conduct of this exercise. Making the Varanasi district magistrate and police commissioner personally accountable, the court further directed that the district administration and the police must render all cooperation to the advocate commissioners and ascertain that the survey is completed as soon as possible. It ordered that the district officials and police be authorised to break open any lock, if required.

“In any condition, the court commissioner’s exercise shall not stop,” stated the court order, seeking the commission’s report on May 17. The civil court also pulled up the district administration for not complying with the court’s order in letter and spirit, adding the survey would have been concluded by now had the district administration rendered its full cooperation. A day after the civil court order, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee sought an intervention of the SC as it mentioned an appeal filed by the mosque management against the April 21 order of the Allahabad HC.

In its appeal, the Committee has argued that the suit filed by the five Hindu women is barred by the provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

It added that the mandate of the Places of Worship Act received the approval of the five-judge bench in its Ayodhya verdict of 2019.

This law, introduced on July 11, 1991, placed a status quo retrospectively on the character of places of worship as existing on August 15, 1947. Only the Ram Janmabhoomi-babri Masjid site in Ayodhya was kept out of the purview of the law. The 2019 Ayodhya judgment by the Supreme Court encompassed a message against attempts to alter the religious nature of a place of worship and about “non-retrogression”, as it noted that “historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands.”

Defining the contours of the Act, the top court held that the law prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and in doing so, it speaks to the future by mandating that the character of a place of public worship shall be preserved and not be altered.