The Muslim side in the Gyanvapi case on Wednesday raised questions before the Allahabad High Court on whether there State of Uttar Pradesh had nexus to the Hindu parties in the case.Appearing before Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, Senior Advocate SFA Naqvi questioned the presence of the State's Advocate General in the courtroom, when the government was yet to be impleaded as a party to the matter."Whatever they (Hindu side) may have claimed in suit is wrong…averments made are preposterous… Why is Advocate General here?…State government is not a party… If there is something between plaintiff and State?" Naqvi asked, as today's hearing drew to a close."He is just assisting," Justice Agarwal replied."There is nexus between the two (State government and Hindu parties)…If directions for State was passed, that can be communicated… Why is he here?" Naqvi argued."So you are alleging against the court also?" the Court queried."Court ke liey toh keh hi nahi sakte (Translation: We can never say anything against the Court)," Naqvi replied while the judge clarified that he was referring to the civil court and not the High Court.Notably, earlier in the hearing, the Court had remarked that the State was a proper party to the suit and suggested that it be impleaded as a party to the matter.Addressing the State's law officer, the judge said,"Mr. Advocate General, what is the stand of the state? You are a proper party, we have to implead you, but what is your stand? Did you stop the plaintiff (Hindu side) in 1993?"The Advocate General, in response, sought time to obtain instructions.The High Court was hearing the plea filed by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee challenging a January 31 district court order permitting the conduct of Hindu prayers in the southern cellar or basement (tekhana) of the Gyanvapi Mosque.The said order was passed amid an ongoing civil court case involving conflicting claims over the religious character of the Gyanvapi compound.Among other claims, the Hindu side has said that Hindu prayers were earlier offered by Somnath Vyas and his family in the mosque's cellar until 1993 when the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led government allegedly put an end to it.The Muslim side has opposed this claim and maintained that Muslims always had possession over the mosque's building.Notably, one of the judgments cited by the Muslim side while Hindu side's pending civil suit is that the religious character of the Gyanvapi compound was already settled by the Allahabad High Court in the 1942 judgment in Din Mohammad v. Secretary of State.The Court, however, expressed doubts today over whether the said case would help either of the rival parties."It was held in Din Mohammad case that you are given only right to offer namaz … no passage right. This judgement doesn’t help anybody. It is making passing comments on both of you. This judgment won’t help you! ... It was there in Din Mohammad case that Vyas family was performing puja and was in its possession. You can’t say there is no such claim… government's stand was that cellar was in possession of Vyas family. This judgment doesn’t help any of you," the Court opined.
"Judge didn’t grant them (Hindu side) any right… It (cellar) was used as store room," said Senior Advocate NFA NaqviThe judge, eventually, opined that the matter would boil down to who was in possession of the disputed site when barricades were set up near the mosque in 1993."Both of you (Hindu and Muslim parties) have to show that property was in your possession when barricading was done in 1993," Justice Agarwal said.Meanwhile, advocate Hari Shankar Jain appeared for the Hindu side today and argued that the State need not be impleaded as a party to the case."When you question the State action (from 1993) … I am asking you if State can be a necessary party?" the Court asked."Ultimately it is the obligation of the trust board… State is a proper party but not a necessary party," Hari Shankar Jain replied.Hari Shankar Jain also reiterated the claim that Hindu prayers had been offered in the tekhana in the past as well, and added that the Muslim side has not specifically denied this aspect."ASI has also found evidence. These (submissions by the Muslim side) are prima facie false statement that there is no deity. There is no specific denial," Hari Shankar Jain said.Supporting these submissions, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain referred to certain old documents to argue that there were records of instances when Ram Charitramanas was read in the Vyas Tekhana (southern cellar located beneath the mosque's courtyard).
"The locks were there, the keys were with Vyas ji…possession was with Vyas family ... My point is, how was Ramayan path happening in that particular cellar? If I wasn’t in possession, how was the path happening? Once a year, it was happening," Vishnu Jain added.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Naqvi continued to contest the correctness of the January 31 order, since it was passed without any fresh application. He contended that an indirect route was cleverly taken which amounted to allowing a part of the suit by way of an interim order.
"Whether the court can allow the party to take possession of the property by such indirect route? ... By passing January 31 order, they have indirectly allowed the part of suit … that cannot be done," he asked.
The Court, however, pointed out that the January 31 order was said to have been passed by invoking a civil court's inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), read with Section 152 of the CPC which allows a judge to correct errors, accidental slips or omissions in orders.
In is reply, Naqvi pointed out that the January 31 order was passed on a mention by the Hindu side without any application.
"(In this case) there is no suo motu action … nor there is application … Therefore, this order is illegal… By means of this order whatever has happened in city of Varanasi your lordship knows," Naqvi added.
TAGS: Gyanvapi case Allahabad High Court State of Uttar Pradesh Hindu parties Advocate General
