Today, the Allahabad High Court rejected a plea from the Muslim side that contested the validity of a 1991 civil suit initiated by Hindu worshippers. The suit aimed to secure worship rights within the premises presently held by the Gyanvapi mosque.

The bench headed by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal delivered the verdict earlier today. The Court has determined that the Hindu side's suit is not restricted by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.

The ongoing suit, situated in a Varanasi court, revolves around the coexistence of the Gyanvapi mosque and the Kashi Vishwanath temple, both proximate in Varanasi. The Hindu factions assert ownership of the Gyanvapi compound, presently housing the Gyanvapi mosque. Their claim within the suit argues that the mosque's premises form an essential segment of a temple.

The Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee, responsible for the Gyanvapi mosque, contested the suit, joined by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board. Their primary contention was that the Hindu parties' suit was restricted by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991. However, the High Court dismissed this argument today.

The Hindu side purportedly justified their 1991 suit by asserting that the conflict existed before the implementation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act. Regarding the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi land title dispute, Justice Prakash Padia previously presided over the cases connected to this matter, having handled it since 2021.

In August of this year, then Chief Justice Pritinker Diwakar (now retired) withdrew and reassigned these cases to another single judge.

This decision stemmed from a complaint filed on July 27 by a Hindu party. The complaint prompted Chief Justice Diwakar to observe that Justice Padia had presided over the cases for more than two years, despite lacking jurisdiction based on the roster in this matter.

The Muslim side expressed apprehensions regarding the Chief Justice's choice to transfer the case, citing Justice Padia's extensive involvement with at least 75 hearings and setting a date for judgment on August 28. Despite this, Justice Diwakar upheld his decision, citing concerns of judicial impropriety. He noted that Justice Padia's bench repeatedly relisted and reserved judgment in the case, despite lacking the jurisdiction as per the roster, prompting the refusal to reconsider the transfer.