The Supreme Court is Scheduled to review a plea on Monday involving the Gyanvapi mosque management committee challenging a ruling by the Allahabad High Court. This ruling upheld a lower court’s decision permitting Hindu prayers in the mosque’s southern cellar. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, will hear the plea from the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee, responsible for managing the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi. 

The High Court rejected the committee’s appeal, where it contested the district court’s decision on January 31, permitting Hindus to conduct prayers in the cellar. While dismissing the mosque committee’s request on February 26, the high court remarked that the Uttar Pradesh government’s 1993 ruling to cease worship activities within the “Vyas Tehkhana” area, situated in the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque, was deemed “illeagal”. 

It was stated that the worship was halted due to the unlawful actions of the state without any written directive and dismissed two appeals made by the mosque management committee contesting the Varanasi district judge’s rulings from January 17. The High Court ordered that worship will continue in the “Vyas Tehkhana” of the mosque, which is located adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath temple in Prayagraj.

Mosque Was Built Over Remains Of Temple: ASI  

An investigation conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as per the court’s directive indicated that the Gyanvapi mosque was built during the reign of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb atop the remains of a Hindu temple. On January 31, the district court ruled that a Hindu priest is allowed to conduct prayers in front of the idols situated in the southern basement of the mosque. 

Currently, the prayers are being performed by a Hindu priest appointed by the Kashi Vishwanath temple trust and petitioner Shailendra Kumar Pathak. Pathak claimed that his maternal grandfather, Somnath Vyas, who was also a priest, conducted prayers in the basement until December 1993. 

In the trial court session, the Muslim party disputed the petitioner’s account. They argued that there were no idols present in the cellar, thus prayers couldn’t have been conducted there until 1993. Also, the Muslim side refuted the petitioner’s assertion regarding his grandfather’s authority over the basement. The petitioner asserted that his family maintained control over the cellar even during the British colonial era. The mosque committee referred to the “structure” as a fountain, while Hindus asserted it to be a Shivling.