In News:

• The Supreme Court has directed the District Magistrate of Varanasi to ensure the protection of the area where a Shivling was reported to be found.
• It also ordered that Muslims should not be restricted or impeded from accessing the Gyanvapi mosque to offer namaz or perform religious observances.

Background:

• On April 8, a petition was filed in the Varanasi Court by five Hindu women seeking access to pray at a shrine behind the western wall of the mosque complex.
• The court appointed Advocate Commissioner Ajay Kumar Mishra to carry out an inspection of the site, prepare videography of the action and submit a report.
• The mosque committee challenged this before the Allahabad High Court which dismissed the plea on April 21.
• The committee then approached the Supreme Court.

News Summary

• SC asked the Varanasi district magistrate to secure the area where a Shivling was claimed to have been found.

Key Highlights:

• Lack of clarity in the trial court’s order
  • SC, while hearing an appeal by the Committee of Management of Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, Varanasi, said there is lack of clarity in the trial court’s May 16 order.
    • Whether the trial court had directed only protection of the Shivling or
    • had also granted the other reliefs sought:
      • To restrict to 20 the number of Muslims who can enter the mosque and offer namaz, and
      • To stop the use of the wazu khana for ablution.
• SC excluded any of the reliefs allowed by the trial judge in his May 16 order
  • The top court excluded any of these reliefs allowed by the trial judge in his May 16 order.
  • Instead, the Bench confined its order to only directing the protection of the specific area in which the Shivling has reportedly been found, without affecting the right of Muslims to offer prayers in the mosque.
• SC did not agree with the plea for a complete stay of the proceedings before the trial judge
  • Representatives of the mosque committee argued that the string of orders passed by the trial court were patently without jurisdiction.
  • In support of their claim, following facts were presented:
    • The trial judge’s order violated Sections 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
    • These sections mandated that one cannot tinker with any place of worship which has been existing and where worship has been performed as on August 15, 1947.
    • Also, the apex court, in the Ayodhya judgment, had said that a mere claim of historical wrong cannot be the basis for changing the nature of a place of worship.
    • The Allahabad High Court had in the past dismissed a similar petition seeking an Archaeological Survey of India survey at the mosque premises, supposedly to find the remains of a pre-existing temple.
  • However, SC declined to stay proceedings before a Varanasi court on matters related to the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque complex.