Court allows videography inside Varanasi's Gyanvapi Mosque: A look at the case, the verdict, and past controversies

Here’s another chapter to add to the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Viswanath years-long dispute.In the most recent row over carrying out videography inside the Gyanvapi Mosque, the Varanasi court has ordered that the video inspection continue and the report be submitted by 17 May.As per News18, the court also kept unchanged the commissioner it appointed for the survey, Ajay Kumar Mishra.As per an Indian Express report, two more advocate commissioners — Ajay Singh and Vishal Singh — have been appointed in addition to Advocate Ajay Kumar Mishra. They were appointed after Mishra was accused of being biased by the Anjuman Intezamia mosque committee.In light of the developments, we trace the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath dispute.What’s the current dispute?The Varanasi court’s order on the Gyanvapi mosque, located next to the iconic Kashi Vishwanath temple, stems from a April 2021 petition filed by five Hindu women asking for year-long access to pray at a Hindu shrine behind the western wall of the Gyanvapi Mosque complex in Varanasi.Presently, devotees are allowed to worship Shringar Gauri only on the fourth day of Chaitra Navratra. The women, as per an NDTV report, also want permission to pray to other “visible and invisible deities within the old temple complex”.On their plea, the court appointed Ajay Kumar Mishra as Advocate Commissioner and instructed him to carry out a survey of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi Mosque complex at the disputed site and submit his videographed report.The survey began last Friday, 5 May, but was not completed as the mosque management denied the officials entry inside the premises. “We will not allow anyone entry in the (Gyanvapi) mosque premises for videography and survey,” SM Yasin, Anjuman Intejamiya Masjid Managing Committee, said as per an earlier report.The Hindu plaintiffs had demanded that the advocate commissioner be allowed inside the mosque and its cellar, which was out rightly rejected by the mosque management.The Hindu plaintiffs then filed an application pleading the court to specify the areas of inspection along with the duration of the process.It was then that the masjid’s committee argued that the court hadn’t passed any order for videography inside the mosque. SM Yasin was quoted as telling The Hindu, “Why go inside the mosque? When the case is about Shringar Gauri? What does Shringar Gauri have to do with the mosque or the barricades? They are quite apart.”They also mentioned that as the mosque is a Waqf property videography can’t be done there.They further claimed that Ajay Kumar Mishra was acting in a biased manner and sought for his replacement.The mosque’s other legal troublesThis is not the first time that the Gyanvapi Mosque is facing legal troubles. Back in April 2021, a Varanasi court had ordered the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to undertake a physical survey to establish whether the mosque was built on the ruins of the temple.The order had been passed on a petition moved by advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi on behalf of Swayambhu Jyotirlinga Bhagwan Vishweshwar, who claimed that the mosque was built at the site after a temple was demolished in 1669 on the orders of Mughal emperor Aurangazeb.Interestingly, the petition was filed just a month after the Supreme Court had delivered its verdict in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi controversy.The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee contested the petition by Rastogi and the matter reached the Allahabad High Court in September 2021.The Allahabad High Court had stayed the ASI survey and also stated that further proceedings in the original 1991 suit before the lower court would remain pending.The original suit in 1991 was filed by the devotees in the name of the deity ‘Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar’, claiming that the Gyanvapi mosque was built at the site of a temple that was demolished in 1669 on the orders of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. They, therefore, demanded that they should be allowed to “renovate and reconstruct their temple”.The mosque’s management in 1998 filed a counter-application, demanding the rejection of the suit on the ground that it is barred by provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.As per the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, all places of worship shall be maintained as they existed on 15 August 1947, and no legal proceeding can be filed on the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship existing on that date.The law was passed by former Prime Minister PV Narsimha Rao during the peak of the Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi dispute during which there was a plan eventually to bring down at least 3,000 mosques in the country, including the Gyanvyapi Mosque in Varanasi and Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura.With inputs from agenciesRead all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.