Varanasi: The Anjuman Intezamina Masjid Committee on Thursday argued, during the Gyanvapi mosque hearing at the Varanasi District court, that the original plea filed by Hindu women was 'non-maintainable'. The hearing is being conducted after an Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) application was filed by the Anjuman Intezemia Masjid Committee, which sought rejection of the initial plea filed by women devotees demanding usage of the mosque's outer walls as well as other parts for offering prayers. The rejection of plea has been sought under Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.
The petitioner's lawyer, Vishnu Jain, meanwhile, confirmed that the arguments by the Muslim side had not been completed and would resume on May 30 at 2 pm. "Today, the Muslim side just read out paragraphs from our petition and tried to say that the petition isn't maintainable. We interjected and pointed out to the court that we've specific rights and all pleadings were made," Jain further said while speaking to the media, opposing the Masjid Committee's stand.
The matter was heard by District Judge Dr. Ajay Kumar Vishvesha. The SC, back on May 20, had transferred the case from Court of Civil Judge to the District Court, noting the suit would be better handled if the hearing was conducted under a senior judge. Meanwhile, a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act was filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday.
The plea argued that "Central Government, by making impugned provision (Places of Worship Act 1991) in the year of 1991 has created arbitrary irrational retrospective cut off date, declared that character of places of worship and pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on 15 August 1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in the court in respect to the dispute against encroachment done by barbaric fundamentalist invaders and such proceeding shall stand abated".
The plea filed by Rudra Vikram Singh, resident of Varanasi, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. Singh's plea further noted that the said sections offend Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 29 and violate the principles of secularism and the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution of India.
(With agency inputs)
