Despite Mathura and Varanasi heating up over Krishna Janmasthan in Mathura or Gyanvapi in Varanasi, a resolution before the 2024 elections seems elusive.
The reliance on Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) studies and evidence by Hindu and Muslim litigants is notable, but the precedent of the Ayodhya judgment, where a five-judge Supreme Court (SC) bench found ASI reports lacking evidentiary value, adds a layer of scepticism. The SC, in the Ayodhya case, emphasized that ASI did not assert the disputed structure was built over a Hindu temple.
Establishing ownership through archaeological evidence may prove challenging in Mathura and Varanasi, as seen in the Ayodhya case where the SC rejected ASI's reports. The Gyanvapi Mosque case in Varanasi, contending Hindu ties to the Kashi Vishwanath temple and Muslim claims under the 1991 Places of Worship Act, highlights the complexity. The SC declined to stay the High Court's order allowing inspection of the Shahi Idgah mosque complex in Mathura, intensifying the legal battle.
A day before SC ruling, the ASI submitted its scientific survey report on the Gyanvapi mosque complex, about whether the 17th century mosque was built over a pre-existing Hindu temple, to Varanasi district court in a sealed cover.
The SC also declined to stay HC order on allowing inspection of the 13-acre Shahi Idgah mosque complex in Mathura by a court-appointed commissioner. Muslim litigants want it barred as per the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Hindus contend it to be birth place of Krishna.
As these cases unfold, references to the Ayodhya judgment are inevitable. The SC's stance as a "secular institution" in Ayodhya sets a precedent for Mathura and Gyanvapi. The court, emphasizing faith and belief, avoids delving into religious intricacies and aims to adjudicate based on other parameters.
The SC's contrast with the Allahabad High Court's reliance on faith and belief in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case is evident. The SC emphasizes evidence over faith, stating, "the court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief alone but on the basis of evidence." The court acknowledges that belief is beyond judicial inquiry and individual, deferring to the entirety of presented evidence.
The ASI's excavation report, pivotal for Hindu litigants in Ayodhya, faced criticism from the SC for failing to conclusively determine whether a Hindu temple was demolished for the mosque. The SC's rejection of the ASI report's evidentiary value reinforces the need for legal principles in determining land title.
Possession, a key factor in the Ayodhya judgment, is likely to play a crucial role in Mathura and Varanasi. The principles of adverse possession, where exclusive control for over 20 years grants proprietorship, were pivotal in Ayodhya. The SC rejected Muslim claims of possession from 1528 to 1949, highlighting evidence of Hindu access to disputed areas.
The upcoming arguments in Mathura and Varanasi will illuminate how litigants navigate these principles and whether archaeological instances hold evidentiary value. Possession may again be a decisive factor. Despite these legal intricacies becoming political issues, a resolution before 2024 remains uncertain. The prolonged legal debates are poised to continue beyond expectations.
By Shivaji Sarkar
(The content of this article reflects the views of writers and contributors, not necessarily those of the publisher and editor. All disputes are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent courts and forums in Delhi/New Delhi only)
Leave Your Comment