Why High Court Rejected Challenge To Hindu Prayers In Gyanvapi mosque
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court declared the Mulayam Singh government’s 1993 decision to halt Hindu prayers in Varanasi’s Gyanvapi Mosque cellar as “illegal.” This ruling came in response to a petition challenging a district court order that permitted the resumption of prayers after a hiatus of 30 years.
Introduction: Gyanvapi
The Gyanvapi Mosque has been a center of religious significance, and one particular cellar, known as Vyas Ji Ka Tehkhana, gained attention due to its sealing in 1993. This article delves into the legal intricacies, historical context, and the recent court decision.
Legal Context
Mulayam Singh Yadav’s government, following the Babri Masjid Demolition in 1992, raised concerns about law and order, leading to the sealing of the cellar temple. This move, deemed “illegal” by the recent high court judgment, set the stage for a legal battle that lasted for decades.
Sealing after Babri Masjid Demolition
The aftermath of the Babri Masjid Demolition saw political upheaval, with Kalyan Singh resigning and President’s Rule being imposed. The subsequent government, led by Mulayam Singh Yadav, justified sealing the cellar by citing law and order concerns.
District Court Order
Last month, a district court issued an order allowing the resumption of Hindu prayers in the disputed cellar. The court’s decision was based on a petition by Shailendra Pathak Vyas, who claimed that his family had been conducting prayers in the cellar since the British era.
Constitution’s Stand
The high court, in its judgment, invoked Article 25 of the Constitution, emphasizing the freedom of religion. It noted that the Vyas family’s right to perform religious rituals in the cellar couldn’t be denied by arbitrary state action.
Family’s Claim
Shailendra Pathak Vyas asserted that the cellar had been in his family’s possession since 1551. Documents were submitted to substantiate this claim, revealing a historical connection that spanned generations.
Documentary Evidence
The court considered documents presented by Mr. Vyas, establishing the family’s longstanding connection with the cellar. These documents added a crucial layer to the legal argument.
Historical Map
A 1936 map filed by the state government further supported the existence of Vyas Ji Ka Tehkhana. The historical map became a key piece of evidence in validating the Vyas family’s claim.
Committee’s Challenge
The Committee Of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, opposing the district court order, failed to establish prima facie possession over the cellar. The court emphasized the importance of clear ownership when challenging such matters.
Prima Facie Possession
The failure of the appellant to establish prima facie possession worked in favor of the Vyas family. The court concluded that preventing worship and rituals in the cellar would be against the interest of the devotees.
State’s Wrongful Act
The high court strongly criticized the state government’s actions since 1993, describing the restraint on the Vyas family’s religious practices as a “continuing wrong.”
Lower Court’s Image
Addressing concerns about the lower court’s order, the high court clarified that the district court’s decision was not based on procedural lapses but on the merits of the case.
Conclusion
In summary, the Allahabad High Court’s decision brings legal clarity to the Gyanvapi Cellar dispute. The judgment reaffirms the constitutional right to freedom of religion and emphasizes the importance of establishing prima facie possession in such matters.
FAQs
- Is the Gyanvapi Cellar dispute resolved?
The recent high court decision has brought legal clarity, favoring the resumption of Hindu prayers in the Gyanvapi Cellar.
- What role did the 1936 map play in the judgment?
The historical map filed by the state government supported the Vyas family’s claim, validating their possession of the cellar since 1551.
- Why did the state government seal the cellar in 1993?
The sealing was justified by the Mulayam Singh government citing law and order concerns after the Babri Masjid Demolition.
- What evidence did Shailendra Pathak Vyas present?
Mr. Vyas submitted documents proving his family’s connection with the cellar, dating back to the British era.
- How did the court address concerns about the lower court’s order?
The high court clarified that the district court’s decision was based on the merits of the case, not procedural issues.
