Home » One Of most Important Takeaways From the Varanasi District Court’s Decision in the Gyanvapi Mosque Case

One Of most Important Takeaways From the Varanasi District Court’s Decision in the Gyanvapi Mosque Case

by OnverZe
3 comments

A single bench of District Judge AK Vishvesh ordered that the petition for the right to worship in the temple be continued.

On September 12, the Varanasi District Court rejected a Muslim petition questioning the legality of a plea seeking permission to worship Hindu deities whose idols are located on an outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque. A single bench of District Judge AK Vishvesh ordered that the petition for the right to worship in the temple be continued. The following are the key takeaways from the court’s decision:

Is the plaintiffs' suit barred by Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991?

The Court stated that the Muslim side’s argument does not appear to be convincing because the petitioner argued that the Hindus were not parties in the above suit and that their application for inclusion in the suit was denied. “As a result, the decree entered in the above-mentioned suit cannot have binding effect against the plaintiffs or the Hindu community, and their right to worship cannot be defeated on the basis of the above-mentioned decree,” the court stated.

Furthermore, the Varanasi court stated that the Hindu side had been worshipping Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Hanuman, and Lord Ganesh at the disputed location since 1993. They were only permitted to worship once a year after 1993, according to Uttar Pradesh state regulations.

“Thus, plaintiffs claim that they continued to worship Maa Sringar Gauri and Lord Hanuman at the disputed location after August 15, 1947. As a result, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not operate as a bar to plaintiffs’ suit, and plaintiffs’ suit is not barred by Section 9 of the Act “According to the court.

Whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by Section 85 of the Waqf Act of 1995.

The plaintiffs in this case have requested that they be permitted to worship the deities of Maa Sringar Gauri and other Gods and Goddesses on the disputed property, but such relief is not covered by Sections 33, 35, 47, 48, 51, 54, 61, 64, 67, 72, and 73 of the Waqf Act. As a result, this court’s jurisdiction to hear the current case is not barred.

The Hindu side requested that they be allowed to worship Maa Sringar Gauri and other gods on the disputed property, but “such relief is not covered by Sections 33, 35, 47, 48, 51, 54, 61, 64, 67, 72, and 73 of the Waqf Act.” As a result, the bench stated that the court’s jurisdiction to hear the current case is not barred.

The beach asserted that the bar under Section 85 of the Waqf Act does not apply in this case because the plaintiffs are non-Muslims and strangers to the alleged Waqf established at the disputed property, and the relief sought in the suit is not covered by Sections 33, 35, 47, 48, 51, 54, 61, 64, 67, 72, and 73 of the Waqf Act. “As a result, the plaintiffs’ suit is not barred by Section 85 of the Waqf Act 1995,” the court stated.

Whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by the Uttar Pradesh Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act of 1983.

According to the Varanasi court, the defendant failed to prove that the Hindu side’s suit is barred by the UP Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983. It stated that the Act does not preclude a suit claiming the right to worship idols installed in the endowment within or outside the temple’s premises.

“As a result, defendant no.4 failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs’ suit is barred by the U.P. Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983,” the court stated.

District Judge AK Vishvesh ruled that the plaintiffs’ suit is not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991, the Waqf Act of 1995, or the U.P. Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act of 1983, and dismissed the Muslim side’s application 35C.

Order of the Gyanvapi verdict: Key Pointers

  • The court rules that the Hindu side is not barred by Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, and that Section 85 of the Waqf Act does not apply in this case.
  • District Judge AK Vishvesh rules that the Hindu side’s suit is not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act and dismisses Application 35C filed by the Muslim side under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.
  • The next hearing in the case is scheduled for September 22.

You may also like

3 comments

https://xxx-free.info/ July 16, 2023 - 16:46

Thhere is definately a lot tto know about thus issue.

I really like alll off thee points you’ve made.

Reply
ScTt.topcn.win August 30, 2023 - 05:27

Thwse are genuinely wonnderful idas in about blogging.
Youu have touched somme good things here. Any waay keep uup wrinting.

Reply
binance March 25, 2024 - 03:48

Can you be more specific about the content of your article? After reading it, I still have some doubts. Hope you can help me.

Reply

Leave a Comment