Editor’s note: We did a two part series on the Gyanvapi Mosque earlier this year. Part One looked at the history of the mosque—and Part Two explained The Places of Worship Act in greater detail.

First, some background

• The Gyanvapi mosque—located inside the Kashi Vishwanath temple complex—has become a legal lightning rod. 
• In 2021 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. 
• This year, a local court ordered a video survey of the mosque to determine its location.
• The petitioners then claimed 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.
• In May, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the women’s petition—and blocked the survey. It ordered sealing of the area where the lingam was found—and kicked back the case to the senior-most judge in Varanasi. 
• The ruling said “the complexity of the issues involved in the case” and “their sensitivity” required the suit be heard by a “senior and experienced judicial officer of the Uttar Pradesh higher judicial service.”
• The Varanasi judge AK Vishvesh was tasked with the job of deciding whether the petition filed by the women could be maintained. 
• The Court said it would only intervene after he made his decision—which he delivered yesterday. 

The ruling: Three laws at stake

The Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee argued that the petition to pray at Gyanvapi was barred by three current laws.

One: Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act—which clearly demarcates the “temple land”—and does not include any part of the mosque. 

What the court said: The ruling cited one of the clauses of the act—and asserted that the temple included “all subordinate temple, shrines, sub-shrines and the Asthan of all other images and deities, mandaps, wells, tanks and other necessary structures and land appurtenant thereto.” In other words, the mosque is part of the temple structure.

Two: The Wakf Act. The challenge argued that since the mosque is the property of the wakf—a property permanently dedicated to Allah—the matter should be decided by a wakf tribunal—not a civil court.

What the court said: It flatly rejected the claim that Gyanvapi is wakf property. The court said the act cannot override “the right, title or interest of persons who are not Muslims.” The law also does not apply in this case since “the plaintiffs are non-Muslims and strangers to the alleged wakf created at the disputed property.” Most importantly this: “the court agreed with the petitioners that since the land belonged to the deity Adi Vishveshwar from time immemorial, it could have never been Wakf property.”

Three: The Places of Worship Act. This is the most critical law at stake in this dispute. Passed in 1991, it describes itself as “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.” It also bars the conversion of a religious place of one community into a place for worship of any other community. All legal challenges based on such pre-independence claims shall be suspended—and no new claim will be entertained.

The committee argued that the law protects the status quo of the mosque. And the petition to offer daily prayers would “alter the character of the mosque as it has existed for over 600 years.”

What the court said: The judge dismissed the argument on the following grounds:

• The petition does not seek to convert the mosque into a temple—and merely asserts the right to offer daily prayers at the site.
• Offering daily prayers would not “alter the character” since Hindus were “worshipping Maa Shringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman, Lord Ganesh at the disputed place incessantly since a long time.” It was only in 1993 that the UP government limited the right to offer prayers to one day a year. 
• The court also cited the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya judgement to assert: “Even where the idol is destroyed or the presence of the idol is intermittent or entirely absent, the legal personality created by the endowment continues to subsist.” 
• In essence, the temples destroyed to build Gyanvapi can be offered as a legal basis for the petition.

The main takeaway: The Places of Worship Act was aimed at ending all legal challenges to places of worship based on such pre-independence claims. In its Ayodhya ruling, even the Supreme Court emphasised that the Places of Worship Act must be enforced in all cases—other than Babri Masjid:

“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.”

But, but, but: The courts have opened a significant loophole to challenge that blanket ban. In May, the Supreme Court declared that “finding the nature of the religious place” is not barred under the Places of Worship Act. In other words, courts can now entertain lawsuits that seek to determine the “religious character” of a location—based on historical claims. Hence, the Varanasi court ruled: 

“The determination of religious character is a matter of evidence which can be laid by either of the parties. The plaintiffs have laid foundation to establish that the religious character of the property in dispute was of Hindu temple and deities were being worshipped within the property in dispute. The plaintiffs have further submitted that no building can be constructed as mosque over the property of Hindu deity or after demolishing a temple.”

In other words, the courts can now decide whether the location of Gyanvapi is a mosque or a temple. This move opens exactly the can of worms that the Places of Worship Act tried to seal. 

Point to note: A Mathura district court allowed claims challenging the status of the Shahi Idgah Masjid 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. Last month, a court agreed to hear a petition filed by right-wing Hindu groups claiming that the Jama Masjid Shamsi in Badaun, UP was built after razing the temple of Lord Neelkanth Mahadev. 

The bottomline: After the ruling, one of the Hindu petitioners declared, “It's a win for the Hindu community… It's a foundation stone for the Gyanvapi temple.” But Muslim leaders are calling on the community not to panic in response to the Varanasi ruling. 

A Lucknow cleric said: “I appeal to Muslims not to overreact or feel bad about the court order. After all, it is only a legal matter and we have options to move the High court and the Supreme Court for justice.” Well, only time and the long-winding legal process will tell.

Reading list

The Indian Express and The Hindu have details of the ruling. Indian Express also explains why it tilts the scales in favour of Hindutva groups looking to challenge the status of Gyanvapi. Al Jazeera reports on the unhappy reactions among civil rights and Muslim groups—while The Telegraph has more from those who don’t view it as a reason to panic. Hindustan Times has the reactions from the Hindu rightwing groups—and various BJP leaders in UP. For a lot more context and history, we strongly recommend checking out our two-part series on the Gyanvapi mosque (part one, part two).