On November 9, 2019, when the Supreme Court delivered its judgement on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya, it was believed that this was the end of the contentious issue as the court, in its order, spoke at length about the Places of Worship Act, 1991. But within a year, petitions were filed across the country staking claims on several mosques with the Gyanvapi mosque and the Krishna Janmasthan-Shahi-Eidgah cases hogging the limelight.
A senior advocate appearing for the Gyanvapi mosque management committee in Varanasi informed the lower court that the ongoing dispute had led to “similar petitions” being filed in other temple-mosque disputes, which would have "larger ramifications across the country".
The statement signifies the petitions filed in different courts by Hindu plaintiffs against mosque committees across the state claiming ownership right of land where the mosques stand now. The petitions say that the said mosques were built atop Hindu temples and thus the right of the land be restored to the rightful owners.
Here are petitions filed in different courts after the 2019 Ayodhya verdict.
Gyanvapi case, Varanasi
In August 2021, five women belonging to Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh had filed a civil suit in the Varanasi civil court on the “right to worship”, seeking daily access to the Shringar Gauri temple, the Swayambhu Jyotirling, the Maa Ganga temple and the Nandi temple to offer daily prayers. Shringar Gauri is a small temple at the western side of the mosque where till 1992 Hindus were allowed to offer prayers.
Ramatma Srivastava, a resident of Varanasi, said that he had gone there many times and every time a group of Hindu women could be seen offering prayers. But after the demolition of the Babri mosque in 1992, Hindus were not allowed there and the area was sealed, he said.
Eight suits are currently pending before the Varanasi civil court, which on April 8 passed orders for videography and survey of the Gyanvapi area by court commissioners. The survey and videography inside the mosque were carried out for three days after which the Hindu side claimed that a “Shivling” was found in the wuzu khana’, which is a small reservoir used by Muslim devotees to perform ritual ablutions before offering the namaz. The lower court ordered sealing of the premises, but the Supreme Court ordered that Muslims should not be prevented from offering namaz there.
Besides, a separate petition seeking a survey by the Archaeological Survey of India using ground penetrating radar is pending in the Allahabad High Court.
The Supreme Court, in its directive of May 20, said that the district judge would hear the issue of maintainability of the right to worship petitions.
Shahi Eidgah case, Mathura
At least 10 suits were filed in the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple and the Shahi Eidgah mosque dispute in 2020, even though a compromise was reached between two sections over the title suit in 1968, and the issue was settled by the civil court.
In its new petition, Ranjana Agnihotri, who claimed herself as the “next friend” of Bhagwan Shri Krishna Viraajman, said that the 1968 compromise was arrived at “through fraud”. She said that the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which had agreed to the compromise, was not the owner of the disputed land. Instead, Shri Krishna Janmasthan Trust was the rightful owner of the land.
The civil court of Mathura dismissed the case in September 2020, but the petitioner challenged the order and moved a review petition. The district judge on May 19, 2022, directed the civil judge to re-hear the matter.
Another case has been filed demanding the appointment of a court commissioner and videography of the disputed area to ascertain whether the mosque has signs of Hindu religion, as has been done in the Gyanvapi case.
Quwwatul Mosque, Delhi
Ranjana Agnihotri also moved the Delhi civil court in October 2021 seeking restoration of Hindu and Jain temples demolished to build the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque in the Qutub Minar premises in Delhi. Early this month, volunteers of Vishwa Hindu Parishad also held a prayer meeting at the Qutub Minar premises and recited Hanuman Chalisa there.
The petitioners claim that 27 Hindu and Jain temples were demolished by Qutb al-Din Aibak to construct the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque. They say the walls of the mosques are adorned with symbols of Hindu gods and goddesses. The petition sought restoration of the temples but it was dismissed by the civil judge in November 2021. The verdict was challenged in the court of the district judge and is pending judgement.
Taj Mahal, Agra
In May 2022, a public interest litigation (PIL) petition was moved in the Allahabad High Court by Rajneesh Singh who sought a “fact-finding commission” and survey of the Taj Mahal premises. The petitioner argued that there were "Hindu symbols" on the premises and sought orders from the court to open the 22 locked rooms in the basement of the mausoleum. The plea was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court and Singh was pulled up for "making a mockery of the PIL system".
The controversy was first stirred by Purushottam Nagesh Oak, a historian, who in his book in 1989 named ‘Taj Mahal: The True Story’, claimed that the Taj Mahal initially was a Shiva temple and a Rajput palace named Tejomahalaya, which Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan seized and adopted as a tomb.
The argument was debunked by a number of historians and even the Supreme Court in 2000 rejected a petition by Oak to declare that the Taj Mahal was constructed by a Hindu king. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), in August 2017, said that that the Taj Mahal was not a temple but a tomb