Editor’s note: We looked at the history of the Gyanvapi Mosque in our Big Story yesterday—including the many attempts by Hindutva groups to claim the land. 

Researched by: Vagda Galhotra & Sara Varghese

First, a quick recap

• The Gyanvapi mosque—located inside the Kashi Vishwanath temple complex—has become a legal lightning rod. 
• This year, five women linked to the right-wing group Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh filed a petition demanding the right to perform puja at a holy site called ‘Maa Shringar Gauri sthal’—located at the back of its premises. 
• A local court ordered a video survey of the mosque to determine its location. 
• The petitioners now claim that a Shiv lingam has been uncovered in a water tank used for ablutions before prayers. Mosque authorities say it’s just part of a fountain.
• Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard an appeal to block the survey filed by the masjid committee.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The Court’s initial ruling was very narrow. It ordered the area where the alleged Shiv lingam was discovered to be sealed—but added that “the above order shall not in any manner restrict or impede the entry of Muslims to the mosque for namaz or other religious observances.” This is “an interim arrangement”—necessary to “balance the rights of contesting parties”—until the Hindu petitioners’ lawyer is able to appear in front of the Court (he was unwell). 

Meanwhile, in Varanasi: The results of the survey were supposed to be submitted to the lower court yesterday. Presumably, this would confirm whether or not there is a Shiv lingam on the premises. But the court-appointed commissioners have now asked for an extension of a couple of days. And the panel chief has been sacked because his cameraman leaked news of the lingam to the press.

Big point to note: The lawyers appearing on behalf of the mosque committee were unhappy with the order. The reason: Their argument is that all the orders issued by the Varanasi court—including the survey of the mosque—are illegal. They say it violates the 1991 law called the Places of Worship Act—and the precedent clearly established by the Supreme Court in its ruling on the Babri Masjid case.

Tell me more about this law

The law: The Places of Worship Act was passed in 1991. Here’s its description:

“An Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

It also bars the conversion of a religious place of one community into a place for worship of any other community. And the character of any such place will remain the same as it was in August 1947. All legal challenges based on such pre-independence claims shall be suspended—and no new claim will be entertained.

But, but, but: The law makes a specific exception for Babri Masjid.

The political context: The law was passed when the Ram Janmabhoomi movement was at its peak—and BJP leader LK Advani had been arrested in Bihar for leading a rath yatra. Then UP chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav had ordered the police to shoot at kar sevaks trying to tear down the Babri Masjid. At the time, the Congress government led by Narsimha Rao sought to assure the Muslim community that “even if they accept the claims of Hindu organisations on the disputed site, other mosques throughout the country would remain protected.”

Point to note: At the time, the law was vehemently opposed by the BJP. MP Uma Bharti even namechecked the Gyanvapi mosque in Parliament:

“Was not the intention of Aurangzeb behind leaving remnants of the temple (he destroyed) at the site of mosque, to keep reminding Hindus of their historical fate and to remind coming generations of Muslims of their past glory and power?”

The mosque was also included in the rallying cry of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement: “Ayodhya toh bas jhaanki hai, Kashi Mathura baaki hai” (Ayodhya is just a preview, Kashi and Mathura are next).

The Babri Masjid ruling: The law again played a starring role in the judgement. While the Supreme Court awarded the land to the Hindu petitioners, it emphasised that Ayodhya was an exception—not the rule. And the Places of Worship Act must be enforced:

“The Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution. The law is hence a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution.”

And this:

“Historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands. In preserving the character of places of public worship, Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future.”

Key quote to note: After the verdict, the RSS distanced itself from the campaign to tear down other mosques—including Gyanvapi. Its chief Mohan Bhagwat said:

"Because of a historical backdrop, the Sangh got associated with this (Ramjanmabhoomi) movement as an organisation. It is an exception. Now we will again be associated with human development and this movement will not remain of concern to us."

But is it constitutional? Currently, there are two petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act. In sum, here’s what they argue:

“The law has been challenged on the ground that it: a) bars judicial review, which is a basic feature of the Constitution; b) imposes an ‘arbitrary irrational retrospective cut-off date’ and; c) abridges the right to religion of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs.”

FYI: When these petitions were admitted by the Supreme Court in 2021, some liberal observers were surprised and worried—accusing the Justice Bobde-led Court of “giving a long rope to the Centre to succeed in proxy litigation that will repeal a law it is not happy with.”

So what happens now?

The next Supreme Court hearing is scheduled for Thursday—when the Uttar Pradesh government and Hindu petitioners will have to respond to the appeal. But it isn’t clear how the Court will deal with the mosque committee’s appeal—which centres around the Places of Worship Act. Yesterday, when pushed by their lawyer, Justice Chandrachud merely said that “we can issue a direction to the trial judge to first dispose of your application” that Gyanvapi is protected by this specific law.

Meanwhile, in Mathura: A new plea has been entered in a local court seeking a video survey of the Shahi Idgah Masjid  “on the lines of (the) Gyanvapi mosque”, to determine “existence of Hindu artefacts and ancient religious inscriptions on the mosque premises.” The claim here is that the mosque was built on the birthplace of Krishna. The hearing is scheduled for July 1—and the court has asked local officials to increase security around the mosque.

Meanwhile, over at the BJP: Like the RSS, the party was eager to move on after the Ayodhya verdict. But there are indications that it has changed its mind. And it may consider repealing the Places of Worship Act—especially if a Shiv lingam has indeed been found on the premises. A senior BJP leader told Indian Express:

“The finding of Shivling in the mosque changes everything. If it’s proved that it’s a Shivling, not a stone fountainhead as the caretakers of the mosque claim, no force in the world can stop the next steps. Then the game is over. Restoration of puja becomes imminent because idols or deities cannot stay without puja.”

And as one BJP leader told The Telegraph: “If a Shivalinga has been found, then it has to be worshipped. No one can stop the worship. And if it’s worshipped, then the 1991 Act loses meaning.”  

Also this: Some senior party leaders suggest that the leadership may not have a choice in the matter: “Ultimately, the law will have to be changed. It’s not an Act created by God, it’s by Parliament and it will become part of the BJP’s agenda even if it does not want it.”

The bottomline: Kashi Mathura toh bas jhaanki hai, saara mulk ab baaki hai.

Reading list

The Telegraph has more on yesterday’s ruling. The Hindu has a very good explainer on the Places of Worship Act. Indian Express (paywall) and The Telegraph flag the BJP’s changing view of the law. The Print has a good analysis of whether the government will actually move toward repealing the Act. Our Big Story on the history of the Gyanvapi Mosque also has a good reading list—with lots more background.