Sami Ahmad
NEW DELHI—Varanasi’s Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee’s Joint Secretary Syed Mohammad Yaseen has said that their faith in the judicial process has been shaken by the way the courts –Varanasi district court and the Allahabad high court – have delivered verdicts in the Gyanvapi mosque case.
He made these comments while responding to media questions after the Allahabad high court verdict on Monday(February 26, 2024).
The high court rejected the plea of the committee challenging the district court’s order of January 31, 2024 allowing puja in the southern basement of the mosque.
But he said that there was no other option to seek relief other than the court though “our faith in judicial process is shaken.”
“It is painful not only for us but for all justice-loving people. Today it is our turn, tomorrow someone else may get the same treatment,” he remarked.
He alleged, “You (the government) are snatching our rights by force using administration and the police.”
He said that the 1937 verdict of the court had clearly ruled that the Jama Masjid, Gyanvapi, was a mosque from top to bottom.
The Hindu party in its petition before the Varanasi court had claimed that puja was held in the basement but was stopped in 1993 on verbal orders of the then-Mulayam Singh Yadav government.
The media also highlighted this claim of the Hindu party quite prominently. It was on the basis of this claim by the Hindu party that the Varanasi district court and Allahabad high court decided the matter in favour of the Hindu petitioner.
But Syed Yaseen outrightly rejected the Hindu party’s claim and asserted that no puja was ever performed there.
He asserted that no puja was done in the basement even before 1993.
“They (the Hindu party) themselves could not prove that puja was performed before 1993. They are only claiming that puja was performed but were never able to prove that with evidence. This verdict has been pronounced without any evidence,” he alleged.
As the verdict was given on the claims of the Hindu petitioners that puja was performed in the basement before it was stopped on oral orders of the then Mulayam Singh Yadav government in 1993, Syed Yaseen said that then there should have been idols and other evidences to prove that puja was performed there before 1993. But there was no such evidence.
He alleged that the district administration brought idols from outside and then started puja in the night of January 31, 2024. If Puja was performed decades ago, then there should have been idols there. There was no need to bring idols from outside and then install them for puja.
The most unfortunate part, he alleged, was that even the divisional commissioner was involved in puja with his son whose photo has gone viral. The divisional commissioner DMS Rajlingam sat there as ‘jajman’ (host ) while district judge in his order had written that puja will be performed by Vishwanath Mandir board president Nagendra Pandey. So, the divisional commissioner usurped Pandey’s right.
Divisional Commissioner DMS Rajlingam and his son in the jacket in front of the old man who performed puja recently at Ram Mandir, Ayodhya.
“The way courts are delivering verdicts in this regard, it is a matter of great concern for us. The court should have checked if any proof was there. There could have been some photos. Some witnesses should have been produced. There were no idols inside, they were brought from outside,” he remarked.
Stating that the Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb is in tatters, he said, “But we still believe that this Tehzeeb would revive. We accept that the time is tough nowadays.”
“It hurts badly when we recall the way puja was ordered on January 31, 2024 and implemented the same night. At that time no certified copy was made available. We were not given time to appeal. The Constitution was murdered on that day.”
He said that the High Court order approving the district court verdict was not necessarily final. “Many such decisions have been overturned in the Supreme Court,” he added.
Refusing to answer a question with reference to UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath that the Hindus wanted only three mosques and one of them – Babri Masjid – they have already got through judicial verdict, he said there was no question of handing over the mosque on a platter.
“We would not give it on a platter. we would continue the fight in in the court till the last breath,” he said.
However, he assured that he would not bring the fight on to the road.
He also clarified that there was no middle path possible in this matter.
The barricading around the mosque, Syed Yaseen said, was done on Supreme Court’s order in 1993 in Mohammad Aslam’s petition in the Babri Masjid vas Ramjanmabhoomi case.
It was partially removed in January 31 night in defiance of the top court order to make way for entry into the southern basement of the mosque to enable Hindu party to start puja.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal of the Allahabad high court, in his February 26, 2024, order, says, “After going through the entire records of the case and after considering arguments of the parties concerned, the court did not find any ground to interfere in the judgement by the district judge on 17th January, 2024, appointing DM (district magistrate), Varanasi as receiver of the property as well as the 31st January, 2024 order by which puja was permitted in the tehkhana (cellar).”
The order allowing puja in the cellar was passed by the district judge AK Vishvesha a day before his retirement on January 30, 2024. That was his last verdict on his retirement day. The masjid committee had challenged this order on February 1, 2024, in the high court after the Supreme Court refused to hear its plea and directed the committee to go to the high court. The mosque committee’s contention is that the cellar was part of the mosque premises and the petitioner Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas or anyone else, should not have access to it.
This Tekhana or cellar is located in the southern section of the Jama Masjid, Gyanvapi popularly known as Gyanvapi Masjid.
Syed Yaseen said, “We have come to know that our petition has been dismissed. We will chalk out the future course of action after studying the verdict. We would definitely go to the Supreme Court to seek relief. The response to court is a court.”
When asked why the committee did not challenge the district court decision to appoint DM as receiver of the concerned property, Syed Yaseen replied, “We were ready to challenge the decision of the district court passed on 17th January but unfortunately, we got a copy of the decision very late. Secondly, our advocate’s son got ill and was hospitalized. That caused some delay, but we had not anticipated that the district judge would pronounce a verdict just a day before his retirement. And the district administration implemented that decision in lightning haste.”
