Follow Us:

Lawyer, files application in SC seeking to be impleaded in the ongoing case of Gyanvapi Mosque

Upadhyay has also filed a petition before the Supreme Court last year, challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act.

Statesman News Service | New Delhi |

Lawyer and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, has filed an application before the Supreme Court seeking a direction for impleadment in the Gyanvapi Mosque dispute case, going on in the SC.

The lawyer, Upadhyay, in his Intervention Application (IA) filed before the Supreme Court, said that the Places of Worship Act of 1991 cannot govern the Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi Mosque issue.

Upadhyay has also filed a petition before the Supreme Court last year, challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act. The matter is pending before the Supreme Court,

Upadhyay in his Public Interest Litigation filed in the Apex Court challenged the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, in October 2020 and the Court had issued notice on his plea.

Upadhyay has stated in his application that, “only those places can be protected, which were erected or constructed in accordance with the personal law of the person erected/constructed them, but places erected or constructed in derogation of the personal law, cannot be termed as a ‘place of worship’.

He has stated that the “Temple’s religious character does not change after the demolition of the roof, walls, pillars, foundation and even offering Namaz. After the Pran Pratishtha of idol, A Temple is Always a Temple until the Idol is shifted to another temple with the rituals of Visharjan. Moreover, the Religious Character of the Temple (Place of Worship) & Mosque (Place of Prayer) is totally different. So, the same Law can’t be applied to both”.

Upadhyay has stressed that the SLP filed before the Supreme Court is infructuous as the Places of Worship Act does not bar the determination of religious character. He mentions in the application that the Act is a penal Law so it must be interpreted literally, not purposively.

Upadhyay also submits in his application that “The mosque constructed at temple land cannot be a mosque, not only for the reason that such construction is against Islamic law but also on grounds that the property once vested in the deity continues to be deity’s property and right of deity and devotees are never lost, howsoever long illegal encroachment continues on such property. Right to restore back religious property is unfettered and continuing wrong and injury may be cured by judicial remedy.”

The Supreme Court had on Friday heard the Special Leave Petition (SLP) regarding the Gyanvapi issue and had ordered that the Order 7 Rule 11 Application being tried in the subordinate court of Varanasi be sent to the District Judge, as the Court was of the opinion that a seasoned hand would be required to handle the matter.