<p>The Varanasi district court’s decision to hear a petition seeking the right to worship at the Shringar Gowri shrine within the Gyanvapi mosque complex will set off another legal battle over an issue that has political implications. Judge Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha dismissed the mosque committee’s objections to a petition filed by five women seeking right to worship at the shrine. The objections were on the ground that it is barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act), 1991, the Waqf Act 1995, and the UP Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983. The judge held that petitioners were only demanding the right to worship at the shrine, where worship was held constantly till 1993 and once a year after 1993. The Places of Worship Act freezes the status of religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947. The judge held that the petitioners only sought the right to worship as a civil right at the disputed property and therefore did not violate the provisions of the Act.</p>.<p>The court also dismissed the objections from the Muslim side on the basis of the other laws. It rejected the argument that any claims on the wakf property could only be settled by the Wakf Tribunal in Lucknow, on the ground that the petitioners were not Muslims but Hindus. The Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act also did not apply, according to the court, because it placed no bar on the worship of idols placed within the “endowments” of the temple complex. The Muslim side has decided to appeal to the Allahabad High Court against the district court’s order on maintainability of the petitions, and the case is certain to reach the Supreme Court, just as the Ramjanmabhomi dispute did. It is likely that it will be a protracted legal battle.</p>.<p>But it’s clear that the dispute is not legal but political and will vitiate politics and society. The Gyanvapi dispute is only one contentious issue. The Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute in Mathura will also be agitated legally and otherwise in the months to come. The Supreme Court in its 2019 judgement in the Ramjanmabhoomi case had endorsed the Places of Worship Act. Whatever interpretation is made of the Gyanvapi dispute, it is clear that the petitions violated the spirit of the Act. In June this year, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat had said there was no need to “look for a Shivling in every mosque” in an obvious reference to the Gyanvapi dispute. The BJP has also stated in the past that it would not raise any temple-mosque issue after the Ayodhya dispute was settled. While claiming that the law should be allowed to take its course, they know well that it is the politics against the minorities that gets strengthened. </p>
<p>The Varanasi district court’s decision to hear a petition seeking the right to worship at the Shringar Gowri shrine within the Gyanvapi mosque complex will set off another legal battle over an issue that has political implications. Judge Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha dismissed the mosque committee’s objections to a petition filed by five women seeking right to worship at the shrine. The objections were on the ground that it is barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act), 1991, the Waqf Act 1995, and the UP Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983. The judge held that petitioners were only demanding the right to worship at the shrine, where worship was held constantly till 1993 and once a year after 1993. The Places of Worship Act freezes the status of religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947. The judge held that the petitioners only sought the right to worship as a civil right at the disputed property and therefore did not violate the provisions of the Act.</p>.<p>The court also dismissed the objections from the Muslim side on the basis of the other laws. It rejected the argument that any claims on the wakf property could only be settled by the Wakf Tribunal in Lucknow, on the ground that the petitioners were not Muslims but Hindus. The Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act also did not apply, according to the court, because it placed no bar on the worship of idols placed within the “endowments” of the temple complex. The Muslim side has decided to appeal to the Allahabad High Court against the district court’s order on maintainability of the petitions, and the case is certain to reach the Supreme Court, just as the Ramjanmabhomi dispute did. It is likely that it will be a protracted legal battle.</p>.<p>But it’s clear that the dispute is not legal but political and will vitiate politics and society. The Gyanvapi dispute is only one contentious issue. The Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute in Mathura will also be agitated legally and otherwise in the months to come. The Supreme Court in its 2019 judgement in the Ramjanmabhoomi case had endorsed the Places of Worship Act. Whatever interpretation is made of the Gyanvapi dispute, it is clear that the petitions violated the spirit of the Act. In June this year, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat had said there was no need to “look for a Shivling in every mosque” in an obvious reference to the Gyanvapi dispute. The BJP has also stated in the past that it would not raise any temple-mosque issue after the Ayodhya dispute was settled. While claiming that the law should be allowed to take its course, they know well that it is the politics against the minorities that gets strengthened. </p>