High court reserves order on Gyanvapi issue

PRAYAGRAJ The Allahabad high court on Tuesday reserved its order on petitions challenging a Varanasi court’s order directing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to “conduct a comprehensive physical survey” of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi mosque complex in order to find out whether a temple was demolished to build the mosque that stands adjacent to the temple
The court reserved the order after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the central government, the state government and others. (File Photo)
The court reserved the order after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the central government, the state government and others. (File Photo)
Published on Sep 01, 2021 09:18 PM IST
Copy Link
By Jitendra Sarin

PRAYAGRAJ The Allahabad high court on Tuesday reserved its order on petitions challenging a Varanasi court’s order directing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to “conduct a comprehensive physical survey” of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi mosque complex in order to find out whether a temple was demolished to build the mosque that stands adjacent to the temple.

The court will pronounce the order at 2pm on September 9, 2021.

The petitioners - UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, Varanasi had challenged the Varanasi court’s order dated April 8.

Justice Prakash Padia reserved the order after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the central government, the state government and others.

The petitioners’ contention was that the suit in which the order of the civil judge (senior division), fast-track court (FTC) of Varanasi (dated April 8, 2021) was passed, is itself not maintainable as per Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which bars filing of suit or any other legal proceedings.

Hence, no claim can be made regarding a religious place that existed on August 15, 1947. As per the Act of 1991, no relief can be sought for changing the status of any religious place as it existed on August 15, 1947, contended the petitioner’s counsel.

The argument of the petitioner’s counsel was that when the high court had already reserved its judgment on the issue of maintainability of the aforesaid suit, the court below should not have passed any order in the suit till the issue of maintainability of the suit was decided by the high court.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Close Story
SHARE
Story Saved
OPEN APP
×
Saved Articles
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Monday, October 25, 2021