Varanasi committee opposing a court order ordering a survey at the Gyanvapi mosque . Five Hindu women, led by Rakhi Singh, had petitioned a Varanasi civil judge for the unfettered right to worship goddess Shringar Devi and other deities inside the Gyanvapi mosque .
The Supreme Court will officially face a potential Ayodhya-type challenge on Tuesday when it hears a pleading complaint by a Varanasi committee opposing a court order ordering a survey at the Gyanvapi mosque.Five Hindu women, led by Rakhi Singh, had petitioned a Varanasi civil judge for the unfettered right to worship goddess Shringar Devi and other deities inside the Gyanvapi mosque, which was earlier the original Kashi-Vishwanath temple but later converted into a mosque by then Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.The trial court appointed an advocate commissioner for local inspection and inspection of the property on April 8, last year, on their behalf.The Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid,Varanasi, contested this ruling before the Allahabad HC, citing a similar complaint filed in 1991 that had been investigated by the Archaeological Survey of India.However, the HC refused to interfere in the naming of a local survey of the mosque by an advocate commissioner.The Anjuman then reacted to the Supreme Court, challenging the Supreme Court's decision not to continue the investigation.The local investigation and survey of the sealed disputed structure would have been completed by the time a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and P S Narasimha decide to accept Anjmans petition opposing the appointment of advocate commissioner for Gyanvapi mosque on Tuesday.The petitioners have cited the Places of Worship Act, 1991, and the Ayodhya decision to convince the SC that the character of no other contestable religious structure could be altered. According to Upadhyay, the Centre had established an arbitrary and irrational retrospective cutoff date of August 15, 1947 for maintaining the character of religious places and preventing the investigation of claims in relation to breaches by fundamentalist barbaric invaders and lawbreakers.And all pending claims in this regard shall be dismissed.As the Ayodhya land dispute case had been wling for centuries, the 1991 Act made the only exception.The 1991 Act was signed into law by Congresses' Narasimha Rao government to protest the Vishwa Hindu Parishad's quest for the ownership of the disputed sites of Babri masjid in Ayodhya, Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, and Shahi idgah in Mathura. A similar PIL has been filed by a group of priests, aided by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, attempting to repeal the 1991 law in order to resurrect litigation on the contested religious sites in Mathura (Krishna Janmasthan) and Varanasi (Kashi-Vishwanath temple-mosque complex).Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind had a strong response, branding it as a clandestinous effort to correct historical wrongdoing and alerted that it was fraught with the possibility of unleashing a barrage of litigation.The SC had referred to the 1991 Act for a guarantee for the preservation of the historical character of places of public worship that existed on August 15, 1947, and for the protection of places of public worship that have been converted, and Parliament decided that independence from colonial rule provides a moral basis for healing the previous injustices by giving each religious group the assurance that their places of worship will be preserved and that their identity will not be altered.