Quick take on the Gyanvapi verdict


7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code by the defendants in the Kashi

Vishwanath Temple case today, 12.09.2022. The issue to be adjudicated under Order 7 Rule 11 falls under a narrow compass that whether the suit filed by the petitioner, i.e. Smt. Rakhi Singh and others are barred by any other law. The application under Order 7 rule 11 was filed, arguing that the suit is barred by provisions of The Places of Worship (Special Provisions)

Act, 1991. Shree Kashi Vishwanath Act, 1983 and the Waqf Act, 1995.

The Court dealt with all the issues and concluded that at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11, the Court is only bound the look at the plaint filed by the petitioner. The petitioners only sought the right to have Darshan, Puja and perform all the rituals of Maa Srinigaar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman and other visible and invisible deities. The Court concluded that

the petitioner is only seeking the right to worship deities which, as per the plaint, was being carried out until 1990. Therefore, the plaintiff is not seeking conversion of the premises into other places of worship. In any case, to invoke the bar under The Places of Worship Act, 1991. It needed to be demonstrated that the place was being used only as a Mosque. It appears to be undisputed that until 1990, Puja was permitted in one form or the others within the premises. Therefore, the question of application of The Places of Worship Act, 1991 would not apply. It further states that Section 85 of the Waqf Act also does not bar the present suit on the ground that no Waqf can be created over the property belonging to and vested in the deities. It is a matter of evidence, the stage for which is yet to come. It is unclear whether Aurangzeb had created Waqf before the construction of the Mosque. In any case, the plaintiff only seeks the right to worship deities

in the disputed property, which is not hit by relevant provisions of the Waqf Act. The court also repelled that UP Shree Kashi Vishwanath Temple barred the suit on the same ground that the petitioner is not seeking right over the property as the trustee of Kashi Vishwanath Temple may only seek it. Therefore, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 was not maintainable.

Gagan Kumar, Custodian at Krishnomics Legal Officer Bearer, BJP Delhi Unit.