oppn parties Gyanvapi Complex Issue: Courts Must Tread Carefully

News Snippets

  • Ministry of External Affairs said that China is building bridges in the areas occupied by it in Pangong
  • India tells Western nations that there is no global shortage of wheat so it should not name India alone as the country has suffered setback in production due to the heatwave in March
  • RBI has slashed the dividend it pays to the Centre by 70% to Rs 30307 cr. Last year it had paid Rs 99132cr
  • Probe panel says that the Telangana encounter of 4 rape accused was staged
  • A Mathura court says that the Mathura Shahi Idgah case does not fall under the Places of Worship Act
  • Calcutta HC says CBI cannot be asked to probe each and every matter
  • CBI files fresh case of corruption against Lalu Prasad and family for scams when he was railway minister
  • Jet Airways likely to begin commercial operations in September
  • In a day of assured trading on Friday, bulls make a comeback: Sensex rises 1534 points to 54326 to recover all losses of the earlier session, Nifty rises 456 points to 16266
  • IPL: Ashwin scores a quick-fire 40 to take Rajasthan Royals home against CSK and ensures top two finish
  • Supreme Court sentences Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu to one year rigorous imprisonment in the 1988 road rage case
  • Home Minister Amit Shah says rights should not be demanded before fulfilling responsibilities and that universities are no place to wage ideological battles
  • NIA court convicts JKLF chief Yasin Malik in terror funding case after he pleads guilty of all charges
  • A study backed by PM-EAC has recommended universal basic income and urban job guarantee and greater spend on social sector schemes
  • Supreme Court rules that the decisions of the GST Council are not binding on the Centre and the states, leaving the door open for states to levy further taxes
Supreme Court transfers Gyanvapi case to Varanasi district judge
oppn parties
Gyanvapi Complex Issue: Courts Must Tread Carefully

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2022-05-13 07:48:33

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.

 The Gyanvapi mosque case took another turn on Thursday when, taking into account the allegations of bias against the Advocate Commissioner conducting the court-ordered video inspection of the premises, a Varanasi court appointed a Special Advocate Commissioner and an Assistant Advocate Commissioner to assist him and ordered that the video inspection be completed by 17th May, by breaking locks if necessary, and the report submitted in court on that day. The court issued orders to the district administration to file immediate FIRs against anyone found obstructing the work of the commission and also ordered that no once except the court appointed officials, lawyers of both sides and administrators of the site be present when the members of the commission were to do their work from 8 am to 12 noon everyday.

The present inspection had been ordered by the court on the plea of five women who wanted the court to allow year-round puja at some site in the complex which is at present allowed only once a year on the fourth day of the Chaitra navaratri in April. The petitioners have also sought the right to pray to other "visible and invisible (emphasis ours) deities within the old temple complex".

While the plea for year-round access to a puja site which is open only once a year cannot be taken as a violation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991(PWSPA) as it does not change the basic character of a place of worship but just demands additional rights, the plea to pray to other "visible and invisible deities" definitely does so. Courts must view these pleas against the express restriction placed by the above Act and must refrain from entertaining them.

The court-ordered video inspection, if it keeps itself to examining the feasibility of allowing Hindus to pray throughout the year at a site where they now do so only once a year, will do no harm. But if it ventures into the additional plea of examining the feasibility of allowing access to other sites in the complex, it will fall foul of the PWSPA. Even in the former case, it must be seen whether additional structures will have to be built to allow such year-round access and the influx of devotees will cause any harm to the mosque. If yes, then that too will be illegal as it will amount to encroachment.