The Allahabad High Court on Monday has delivered its verdict on the appeal of Anjuman Arrangements Mosque Committee (AIMC) regarding the Gyanvapi complex, and said that the worship of Hindus will continue in the basement of Vyas ji. This decision of Allahabad High Court has given a big blow to the Muslim side. while one side, the Hindu side has started Holi celebrations, the Muslim side has said that they will challenge this verdict in the Supreme Court.
Earlier, the order of the Masjid Arrangement Committee, Varanasi District Judge, had been challenged, in which Hindu devotees were allowed to offer prayers inside the ‘Vyas Ka Tahkhana’ area in the Gyanvapi Masjid complex.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Aggarwal of Allahabad High Court has given the verdict in this regard.
Earlier, after a long debate between the two parties, the court had reserved the decision.
The basement of the mosque has four ‘tahkhanas’ (cellars), one of which is still in the possession of the Vyas family, who lived there.
Earlier, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) president Asaduddin Owaisi said the Varanasi court’s decision to allow Hindu devotees to offer prayers at the ‘Vyas ka Tekhana’ area inside the Gyanvapi Masjid complex was a violation of the places .
“The judge who pronounced the judgment was on his last day before retirement. The judge appointed the District Magistrate as receiver on January 17 and finally he pronounced the judgment directly. He himself had said that no prayer was made since 1993. It’s been 30 years.” He said, “How did they know there was an idol inside?” This is a violation of the Places of Worship Act.
“They have ordered the grill to be opened within 7 days. 30 days should have been given to appeal. This is a wrong decision. Unless the Modi government says that they stand by the Places of Worship Act, this will continue. Will remain.” During the verdict of Babri Masjid ownership case, I had expressed this apprehension. The Places of Worship Act was made part of the basic structure of the Supreme Court judgment, then why are the lower courts not following the order?”
