In a big jolt to the Muslim side, the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday rejected a plea opposing hearing in the Varanasi district court on regular worship of the Shringar Gauri related to the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi case.

The single bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice J J Munir rejected the revision petition filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee.

The high court had reserved the judgement on December 23,2022  after the completion of the arguments.

Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee had challenged the decision of District Judge Varanasi.The Muslim side has argued that the civil suit is not maintainable under the Places of Worship Act of 1991 and the Central Waqf Act of 1995.

In the Shringar Gauri case, a civil suit was filed by Rakhi Singh of the Hindu side and 9 others in the Varanasi court demanding regular worship found at the Gyanvapi premises.

After the verdict now the Varanasi district Judge will continue  its hearing civil suit.

During the three month long arguement, the Muslim side  argued  that the Places of Worship Act prohibited regular worship because it will disturb the religious nature of the place which cannot be done legally. Therefore, regular worship should not be allowed here.

They also said that the civil suit should be declared time-barred on the basis of the law of limitation. It is said that an attempt has been made to interfere with the rights of the opposite party by cleverly filing a civil suit demanding the right to worship due to which the 1991 law will be violated. Therefore, the suit filed for regular worship of Shringar Gauri in the district court is not maintainable.

Hari Shanker Jain, pleading for the civil suit stressed that Hindus have been worshiping Shringar Gauri, Hanuman and Kriti Vaseshwar, according to mythological evidence well before  August 15, 1947. Therefore, the Places of Worship Act of 1991 would not be applicable in this case.       He said that after the idol is consecrated in the temple, the ownership of that land vests in the idol. In Hindu law, the indirect idol continues to exist even after the temple is destroyed. He said that Aurangzeb himself demolished the Bhu Vishweshwar Nath temple and the wall of the temple has been given the shape of a mosque.

Jain pleaded that the place cannot be considered a mosque under Islamic law and namaz is not accepted at the disputed site. Citing the Deen Mohammad case of 1937, Jain said that in this case only the plaintiff was allowed to offer Namaz. The Muslim community is not allowed to offer Namaz. He said that where there are three domes today, Shringar Gauri, Hanuman and Kritivas temples were there. He also presented a map and said that no Islamic historian has mentioned the Gyanvapi mosque. It has become clear that the Alamgir mosque is located three kilometers away from the disputed site. Many temples were demolished to build mosques during that period.

Presenting the picture of the disputed structure, he said it is clearly visible that the temple has been demolished and given the shape of a mosque.