By Dr. Gyan Pathak
Three Temple-Mosque disputes in Uttar Pradesh will keep the communal politics alive in the months to come before May 2027, when the state will be going to polls. These are Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, Sri Krishna Janmaboomi-ShahiIdgah Mosque in Mathura, and the Sambhal Mosque disputes, in which both the Hindu and Muslim litigants have rejected the Supreme Court’s proposed mediated settlement.
Despite the provisions in the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, which provides for maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, barring “Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Mosque, the RSS-BJP clan was allowed to target and raise many disputes in the country. Though the Act of 1991 has barred admitting any other case, even courts have been entertaining such religious disputes, and the government led by BJP encouraging such disputes for political gains. It seems there is no end to communal politics in near future.
Supreme Court’s administration has recently written to all contesting parties in the three Temple-Mosque disputes to explore amicable settlements under its nationwide mediation initiative called “Supreme Court Action for Mediated Adjudication and Disputes Harmonization Across Nation (Samachan Smaroh) 2026”, which will culminate in a special Lok Adalat from August 21 to 23.
Since both the Hindu and Muslim parties have outright rejected the Supreme Court’s proposal for mediated dispute resolution and insisted on to fight out the issues in courts on their respective merit, RSS-BJP-VHP has alternative plan to keep their communal politics alive, not only around these three Temple-Mosque disputes, but many more.
Among their many targets, much publicized ones are Teele Wali Masjid, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh; Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque, Qutub Minar, Delhi; Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh; Kamal Maula Mosque, Bhojshala Complex, Madhya Pradesh; Shamsi Shahi Masjid, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh; Atala Masjid, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh; Shahi Eidgah Masjid, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh; Jama Masjid, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh; Jama Masjid and Dargah of Shikh Salim Chisti at Fatehpur Sikri, Uttar Pradesh; and the Ajmer Sharif Dargah, Rajasthan.
It should be recalled that the Ayodhya Verdict’s upholding the Places of Worship Act is one of the most important aspects of the judgement, as far as putting full stop to communal tension and disharmony is concerned. However, one of the judges of the bench Justice D Y Chandrachud committed a grave mistake in his observations.
In Kashi Gyanvapi Mosque case the CJI Chandrachud had observed that Places of Worship Act 1991 did not prohibit ascertaining the religious character of the structure, even if its use cannot be changed. It opened the floodgate of cases against the Mosques and Dargah, which are ultimately leading to communal disturbances. Justice Chandrachud went against the Ayodhya Verdict in which he himself was one of the judges.
The recent initiative of the Supreme Court for mediated solution for the dispute is appreciated by many, but it is seen not in accordance to the spirit of the Places of Worship Act 1991.
Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi case is an ongoing civil court case involving religious character of Gyanvapi compound. Hindu litigants have claimed that the family of Somnath Vyas have been performing worship and prayer in the Gyanvapi Mosque’s cellar until 1993 when it was stopped by the state government led by Mulayam Singh Yadav.
This claim was contested by the Muslim litigants who said that it was false. Muslims have always had possession over all the parts of the Mosque’s building. Hindus claim that there was an ancient temple on the site where Gyanvapi Mosque was built in 17th century during Aurangzeb’s rule. Muslims on the other hand claim that the mosque predated Aurangzeb.
As for Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-ShahiIdgah dispute in Mathura, Hindus have filed a civil suit claiming that the Mosque was built on Krishna Janmabhoomi land. They have sought removal of the Mosque. It is worth noting that the main civil suit was initially dismissed by the civil court in September 2020 citing the Places of Worship Act 1991. However, Mathura District Court later overturned the initial order in appeal.
In the Shahi Jama Masjid Sambhal case, a civil court had directed an advocate commissioner on November 19, 2024 to conduct a survey to ascertain the religious nature of the place. First survey was conducted on the same day. Violence erupted when surveyors arrived there on November 24, 2024 for the second survey. Four persons were reportedly killed amid torching of vehicles, stone pelting, and violence.
Rejection of Supreme Court’s initiative for mediated dispute resolution by both the Hindu and Muslim parties is a significant development. They want justice on merit. Nevertheless, the objective of the Places of Worship Act 1991 has been shattered. The Ayodhya Verdict had noted about it and said, “The law speaks to our history and to the future of the nation. Cognizant as we are of our history and of the need for the nation to confront it. Independence was a watershed moment to heal the wounds of the past. Historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands. In preserving the character of places of public worship, Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future.” (IPA Service)
