The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has termed "disappointing" the Varanasi district courౠt's decision on the maintainability of the Gyanvapi mosque case and urged the government to implement the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, with full force.
The Varanasi district court on Monday said it will continue to hear a petition seeking daily worship of Hindu deities whose idols are located on an outer wall of the Gyanvapi Masjid, dismissing the mosque committee's argument that th🍌e case is not maintainableꦅ.
What did AIMPLB say?
In a statement, AIMPLB General Secretary Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani said the preliminary decision of the district judge's court was &qu⛦ot;disappointing and saddening".
Rahmani saiཧd in the midst of the Babri Masjid controversy in 1991, Parliament had approved that the status quo at all religious places, exceꦇpt the Babri Masjid, would be maintained as in 1947, and no dispute against it would be valid.
Then in the Babri Masjid case, the Supreme Court upheld the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and declared it mandatory, he p♚ointed out.
"But in spite of this, those who want to serve hatred and who do not care about the unity of this countrꩵy, raised the issue of Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi and it is a pity that the district judge's court ignored the 1991 law and allowed the petition," Rahmani said.
"Now, this sad phase hꦛas come where the court has initially accepted the claim of Hindu groups and has paved the way for them. It is a painful thing for the country and the people," he said.
This will affect the u🃏nity of the country and harm commun༺al harmony, Rahmani said.
The government should implement the 1991 law with full force, all the parties should be made boun♋d to t🧸his law and a situation should not arise wherein the minorities get frustrated with the justice system and feel all the doors of justice are closed for them, he said in a statement.
What is the current controversy all about?
Dist🍸rict Judge A K Vishvesh rejected the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee's petition questioning the maintainability of the case, which has reignited the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi Masjid dispute.
Separately, the Alla൲habad High Court which is hearing another case dating back to 1991 on the temple-mosque dispute on Monday fixed September 28 for its next he🧜aring.
The mosque is located next to the iconic temple and the case in the Varanasi court revived claims that the mosque wasꦡ built on a portion of the Hindu struc♔ture demolished on the orders of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.
The Supreme Court had directed the district court to first decide on the maintainability of the case, filed by five Hindu women seeking permission to offer daily prayers before the idols of Sh🐼ringar Gauri.
The mosque committee had approached the apex court, arguing that their plea was not maintainౠable as the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, mandated that the character of such places should remain as it was at Independence.The 1991 law made an exemption only for the Ram Janmabhoomi-B👍abri Masjid land dispute.
The Varanasi district court has now said the 1991 Act does not apply in this case where the devotees are seeking permission for daily worship of the idols they say are already installed there. Already, they are allowed to offer prayers there oꦚnce a year, their lawyers had argued.
(With PTI Inputs)
