Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Dispute: What You Need to Know About the History and the Law

The Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Land Title Dispute: A Historical and Legal Perspective

The Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi land title dispute is one of the oldest and most contentious religious conflicts in India. It involves the claim of Hindu worshippers to restore an ancient temple at the site currently occupied by the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, one of the holiest cities for Hindus. The dispute has been pending in various courts for over a century, and has recently witnessed a significant development, as the Allahabad High Court ruled that the civil suits filed by the Hindu parties are not barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991, and directed the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously.

The Historical Background

The history of the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi dispute dates back to the medieval period, when the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb demolished the original Kashi Vishwanath temple, dedicated to Lord Shiva, and constructed the Gyanvapi mosque in its place in 1669. The temple was believed to have been built by King Vikramaditya in the 11th century, and was one of the 12 Jyotirlingas, or the most sacred shrines of Shiva. The mosque, on the other hand, was named after a well (gyanvapi) located within its premises, which is revered by both Hindus and Muslims.

The demolition of the temple and the construction of the mosque sparked a long-standing dispute between the two communities, which continued even after the British colonial rule. Several attempts were made by the Hindu devotees to rebuild the temple or to gain access to the mosque for worship, but they were met with resistance from the Muslim authorities. In 1780, the Maratha ruler Ahilyabai Holkar built a new Kashi Vishwanath temple adjacent to the mosque, which is still in existence today. However, the Hindu claimants were not satisfied with this arrangement, and sought to reclaim the original site of the temple.

The Legal Battle

The legal battle over the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi dispute began in 1883, when the first civil suit was filed by a Hindu priest named Raghubar Das, seeking permission to construct a temple over a portion of the mosque. The suit was dismissed by the district judge, and the appeal was also rejected by the Allahabad High Court in 1886. The court held that the mosque was built more than 200 years ago, and that the Hindu claimants had no right to interfere with the possession of the Muslim defendants.

The dispute remained dormant for several decades, until the independence of India in 1947, which was accompanied by the partition of the country and the communal riots that followed. The Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi site became a flashpoint of communal tension, and was placed under heavy security by the government. In 1949, a group of Hindu activists entered the mosque and installed an idol of Lord Ram inside it, claiming that it was the birthplace of the deity. This led to the filing of several civil suits by both Hindu and Muslim parties, seeking the ownership and possession of the disputed site. The suits were consolidated and referred to the Allahabad High Court, which delivered its judgment in 2010, dividing the disputed land into three parts, giving one-third each to the Hindu deity Ram Lalla, the Nirmohi Akhara (a Hindu sect), and the Sunni Waqf Board (a Muslim trust). The judgment was challenged by all the parties in the Supreme Court, which in 2019, overturned the Allahabad High Court’s verdict, and granted the entire disputed land to the Hindu deity Ram Lalla, paving the way for the construction of a Ram temple at the site.

The verdict of the Supreme Court in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, also known as the Ayodhya case, had a significant impact on the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi dispute, as it revived the Hindu claim to the original site of the temple. In 1991, the central government had enacted the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, which declared that the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, shall be maintained, and no person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination into one of a different denomination or section. The Act also barred the filing of any suit or proceeding in respect of any such place of worship, except for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which was expressly excluded from the purview of the Act.

The Hindu claimants, however, argued that the Act did not apply to the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi dispute, as it was not a dispute over the religious character of a place of worship, but a dispute over the ownership and possession of the land. They also contended that the Act was unconstitutional, as it violated their fundamental right to freedom of religion and worship. They filed several civil suits in the Varanasi court, seeking the right to worship in the Gyanvapi mosque and the restoration of the temple at the disputed site. The suits were opposed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee (which manages the Gyanvapi mosque) and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, which claimed that the mosque was a valid waqf property, and that the suits were barred by the Act.

The Recent Development

The Allahabad High Court, in its judgment dated December 19, 2023, rejected the pleas of the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, and held that the civil suits filed by the Hindu parties were not barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991. The court, in a 125-page order, observed that the Act did not intend to extinguish the rights of the parties that existed prior to the enactment of the Act, and that the suits were based on the assertion of title and possession of the land, and not on the conversion of the religious character of the place of worship. The court also noted that the Act did not apply to the suits that were pending before the enactment of the Act, and that the suits filed by the Hindu parties were in continuation of the suit filed by Raghubar Das in 1883, which was never finally decided.

The court further held that the suits involved a substantial question of law, as to whether the mosque was built after demolishing the temple, and whether the temple was a public or a private property. The court said that these questions could not be decided at the stage of framing issues, and required evidence and trial. The court also said that the mosque compound could have either a Muslim character or a Hindu character, and that the same could not be decided at the stage of framing issues.

The court also directed the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously, within six months, and said that the suit affected two major communities of the country. The court also said that the ASI survey conducted in one suit shall also be filed in the other suits, and if the lower court felt that a survey of any part was necessary, the court may direct the ASI to conduct the survey.

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court has opened a new chapter in the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi dispute, which has been pending for over a century. The judgment has also raised several questions, such as the validity and applicability of the Places of Worship Act 1991, the constitutional right to freedom of religion and worship, the historical and archaeological evidence of the temple and the mosque, and the possibility of a peaceful resolution of the dispute. The judgment is likely to be challenged in the Supreme Court, and the final outcome of the dispute remains to be seen.

The Places of Worship Act 1991 is a law enacted by the central government of India to protect the religious character of places of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, the date of India’s independence. The law prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from one religious denomination to another, and bars any legal proceedings regarding the ownership or possession of such places, except for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya, which was excluded from the purview of the law. The law also declares that any pending suit or proceeding concerning the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship before August 15, 1947, shall abate, and no new suit or proceeding shall lie on or after the commencement of the law. The law was enacted to preserve the communal harmony and respect the sentiments of all sections of the society. However, the law has been challenged and criticized by some parties, who claim that it violates the constitutional right to freedom of religion and worship, and that it ignores the historical injustices and encroachments on the places of worship of certain communities.

The Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Land Title Dispute is a long-standing legal dispute between the Hindu and Muslim communities over the ownership and religious character of a site in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, where the Kashi Vishwanath Temple and the Gyanvapi Mosque are located. The dispute first reached the courts in 1991, when a petition was filed by the local priests of the temple, seeking the removal of the mosque and the transfer of the land to the Hindu community. The main petitions and lawyers involved in this case are:

• Original Suit No. 610 of 1991: This is the petition filed by the temple priests in the Varanasi Civil Court, claiming that the mosque was built by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb after demolishing a part of the temple in 1669. The petitioners are represented by lawyers Vijay Shankar Rastogi, Sunil Rastogi, Tejas Singh and Vineet Sankalp. The respondents are the Uttar Pradesh Central Sunni Waqf Board, the Anjuman Intazamia Masjid (a committee of the mosque), and the state government. The respondents are represented by lawyers S.F.A. Naqvi, Syed Ahmad Faizan, Punit Kumar Gupta, Devendra Kumar Mishra, M.C. Chaturvedi, Vineet Pandey, Vijay Shankar Prasad and Ved Mani Pandey.
• Civil Revision No. 139 of 2020: This is a revision petition filed by the Anjuman Intazamia Masjid in the Allahabad High Court, challenging the order of the Varanasi Civil Court that allowed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a survey at the disputed site to ascertain its historical and religious character. The petitioners are represented by lawyer S.F.A. Naqvi. The respondents are the temple priests, the ASI, and the state government. The respondents are represented by lawyers Ajay Kumar Singh, Vijay Shankar Rastogi, Sunil Rastogi, Tejas Singh, Vineet Sankalp, Shashi Prakash Singh, Manoj Kumar Singh, M.C. Chaturvedi, Vineet Pandey, Vijay Shankar Prasad and Ved Mani Pandey.