Read Time: 07 minutes

Nikhil Upadhyay, a law student, today moved an impleadment application before the Varanasi Court seeking to be a party in ongoing Gyanvapi case (Rakhi Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others).

Upadhyay, a Ghaziabad resident, has alleged that being a devotee of Lord Shiva, he has direct interest in the ongoing suit and for appropriate appreciation of facts and circumstances, his impleadment is extremely important.

Upadhyay's application reads that only those places are protected under Places of Worship Act, 1991 which were constructed in accordance with the personal law of person constructing them. "Places constructed in derogation of the personal law, cannot be termed as a place of worship," it states.

Upadhyay has further argued that the Mughal Ruler Aurangzeb had illegally occupied the land belonging to Lord Adi Shri Vishveshwar and this his illegal act cannot be legalize through the 1991 Act.

"Islamic ruler Aurangzeb had issued an order on 09.04.1669 directing his Administration to demolish the temple of Lord Adi Visheshwar at Varanasi. There is nothing on record to establish that the then ruler or any subsequent ruler has passed any order to create a Waqf over the land in questionor for handing over the land to any Muslim or body of Muslim," he has claimed.

Further arguing that the Palace of Worship Act,1991 will not be applicable to the current suit, he has asserted, "Retrospective cutoff date cannot be fixed to legalize illegal acts of barbaric invaders as Hindu Law (Temple Character never changes) was ‘Law in force’ at the commencement of the Constitution by virtue of Article 372(1)."

To strengthen his arguments, Upadhyay has submitted that though the Mughal Ruler's Administration partly demolished the temple structure the Western side of the temple is continuing in its original shape. "The upper portion of the western side of the Mandap is still there. The Veranda 16X10 around central hall of the temple is still there. The northern and southern walls of the temple have been used without any change in the construction raised during Aurangzeb regime," he alleges.

Furthermore, rebutting Mosque Committee's claim that the disputed property was declared a waqf by the Local Court in the Civil Suit No.62 of 1936 filed by one Denn Mohammad, Upadhayay has contended that Muslims had filed that suit only for declaration without seeking any consequential relief. "This suit was filed even without impleading any person from Hindu community. Therefore, the judgment passed in the suit is not binding upon any member of Hindu community," he has stated.

Upadhyay has also contended that since the U.P. State Legislature has recognized the deity ‘Adi Visheshwara’Jyotirlinga in its original form along with subsidiary deities existing from the time immemorial within old temple complex i.e. the property in question,  hence, it vests in the Board of Trustees constituted under U.P. Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 and Board is under obligation to manage the property of temple.

Lastly, contending that Muslims cannot assert any right in respect of any piece of land claiming to be a Mosque unless it has been constructed on legally owned and occupied virgin land, Upadhyay has sought permission to be impleaded in the case.

The suit in which impleadment has been sought is filed by 5 women seeking the performance of all rituals of Maa Shringar Gauri, Lord Ganesha, Lord Hanuman & other deities within the "old temple complex" allegedly existing inside the mosque site.

The District and Sessions Judge Dr. AK Vishwesha is hearing the matter.