Muslim side is saying that under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the status of the Gyanvapi mosque cannot be changed.
In the Gyanvapi Masjid-Sringar Gauri case, the Varanasi district court will decide today which petition will be heard first. On Monday, the Hindu and Muslim sides presented their arguments. The Muslim side is saying that under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the status of the Gyanvapi mosque cannot be changed.
The Hindu side is contesting this claim, saying the 1991 Act is not applicable to the Gyanvapi case, and demanding the inclusion of the report of the first commission. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, District Judge Arjun Krishna Vishvesh reserved his decision on Monday. Today at 2 pm, the court will give an order on the maintainability of the case.
Read | Rare photo of Gyanvapi complex clicked in 1868, see here
Abhay Yadav, counsel for the Muslim side, said that the 7/11 petition was debated on Monday. The maintainability of the suit and as per the direction of the Supreme Court, Shringar Gauri Regular Darshan case was debated. On behalf of the Muslim side, a demand was made from the court that under the 1991 Places of Worship Act, no suit could be made, so the case should be dismissed.
On this, advocate Vishnu Jain, appearing for the Hindu side, said that the commissioner appointed by the court has submitted the survey report. Therefore, the respondent party should object to this. He had applied for providing CDs and photographs of the report submitted by the commission.
The Varanasi local court’s order of May 17 on conducting a videography survey of the Gyanvapi Masjid complex has thus put the spotlight back on the 1991 Act.
Worship Act is not effective in this case
According to the Hindu side, the proceedings report of the commission should also be included in this debate. Advocate Vishnu Jain said that the place of worship Act of 1991 does not apply in this case. There is no basis for 7/11 without analysing the religious character. Vishnu Jain said that the commission action, video, photographs are evidence related to this case.
First copy of his video and photograph should be given. After getting objections from both the parties, decide whether the suit is maintainable or not. Let us inform that in the petition of 7/11, the Muslim side has raised questions on the maintainability of the case.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "1991 Worship Act applicable or not, Varanasi court to decide today")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}