The Supreme Court on Friday is examining a plea seeking to transfer 15 pending cases related to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi Mosque dispute to the Allahabad High Court.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan issued a notice and stated that it would consider whether High Courts should function as appellate forums for evaluating evidence.
This development arose from an interim application filed by the Muslim parties challenging the Allahabad High Court’s endorsement of a Varanasi court’s January 31 order. This order allowed Hindu parties to conduct prayers in the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi Mosque.
Notably, the High Court previously criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for halting Hindu prayers through an oral order in 1993, deeming it illegal.
Earlier in April, the Supreme Court refused to stay the Varanasi court’s decision and ordered all parties to maintain the status quo. It permitted Hindu priests to access the southern cellar for prayers while Muslims continued their worship in the northern section of the mosque.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, supporting the plea for transfer, argued that consolidating the cases in the High Court would prevent conflicting rulings and allow a comprehensive review by a three-judge bench.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi opposed the move, warning that it might set a precedent for similar disputes nationwide to be shifted to High Courts, adding to their workload.
Ahmadi further contended that several related cases, such as the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey and disputes over sealed areas within the Gyanvapi complex, are already before higher courts.
He also invoked the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which protects the religious character of sites as they stood on August 15, 1947, to argue against these claims.
The Bench has scheduled all related matters for a consolidated hearing on December 17.
The ongoing legal battle revolves around the religious character of the Gyanvapi compound. The Hindu side claims that prayers were historically offered in the mosque’s cellar until 1993 when the government allegedly intervened.
They assert that the site was originally a temple dedicated to Lord Vishweshwar, destroyed during Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb’s reign to construct the mosque. The Hindu plaintiffs seek to restore the ancient temple and argue that their claims predate the 1991 Places of Worship Act.
Conversely, the Muslim parties maintain that the mosque predates Aurangzeb’s rule and has undergone alterations over time. They oppose the Hindu parties’ assertions of ownership and demand the preservation of the mosque’s status.
This dispute remains a sensitive issue, intertwining historical grievances, legal interpretations, and communal sentiments. The Court’s decision on the transfer and the broader resolution will likely have significant implications.
(Inputs By Sambhav Sharma)
