The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stop the ongoing prayers by Hindu devotees within the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi even as it ordered a “status quo” on the religious observances by both Hindu and Muslim sides inside the mosque precincts.

A bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, noted that both the Muslim and Hindu sides have been conducting their respective religious observances “unhindered” inside the mosque premises and therefore, a status quo would serve the ends of justice for now.

“Bearing in mind the fact that namaz is being offered by the Muslim community unhindered after the orders of the district court and the high court, and that puja by the Hindu devotees is confined to the tehkahna (cellar), it would be appropriate to maintain status-quo so as to enable both the communities to offer religious worships in the above terms,” said the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, in its order.

It pointed out that the entry to the cellar is from the southern side while the access to the mosque is from the northern side.

The court directed that the status quo on the site shall not be disturbed without any further order of the apex court. It also issued notice on the plea by the Gyanvapi Mosque Management Committee against the ruling that permitted Hindu devotees to conduct prayers within the southern cellar of the mosque, indicating the matter will be heard in detail in July.

“For present, we are ensuring that both namaz and puja are offered in terms of the orders passed by the district court on January 17, 2024, and January 31, 2024. We will hear the case in detail at a later stage,” the bench told senior counsel Huzefa Ahmadi, who appeared for the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, responsible for the Gyanvapi mosque’s administration in Varanasi.

After it went through a google earth image of the mosque premises that was adduced by Ahmadi during the proceedings, the court said that the issue regarding whether the courtyard surrounding the mosque is a part of the waqf property or not can be adjudicated at a later stage.

The committee has challenged the Allahabad high court’s decision on February 26, dismissing its appeal against a previous order of a district court that granted Hindus the right to worship in the cellar.

On January 31, district judge AK Vishvesha (since retired) granted the family of a late priest the right to resume prayers in the southern cellar of the mosque after three decades, saying that the petitioner Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas and a priest appointed by the Kashi Vishwanath trust, which manages the temple next door, will be allowed to enter the premises.

Vyas argued that his maternal grandfather, Somnath Vyas, also a priest, performed rituals in the cellar until their cessation in December 1993, halted during Mulayam Singh Yadav’s chief ministership following the Babri Masjid demolition in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.

The Muslim representatives contended during the trial court hearings against the petitioner’s assertions, arguing that no idols were present in the cellar, thereby nullifying the basis for offering prayers there until 1993. They also disputed the claim that the petitioner’s family had control over the cellar, asserting that this control extended back to the British colonial era.

But the district court ruled in favour of the Hindu parties. The district judge said that the prayers — which were last offered in December 1993 — will have to resume within the next seven days. January 31 was the last working day of the district judge.

The order, which came less than a week after a report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), said that a large Hindu temple existed before the construction of the Gyanvapi Masjid. It marked another significant turn in the decades-long dispute that is expected to have an impact not only on a number of related suits over the shrine but also on similar petitions over a mosque in Mathura.

During the proceedings before the top court on Monday, Ahmadi lamented that the committee is losing its right over the mosque premises gradually. “Bit by bit, you are getting into the mosque premises and ousting me out…The entire mosque complex is one. It cannot be segregated like this. When you allow someone to enter the cellar, you are going encroaching upon an area in possession of the mosque,” said the senior lawyer, pressing for a stay on the high court order.

Ahmadi added that allowing puja will fester discord. “History has taught us something else where despite an assurance, something nasty has happened…Please protect me from any further encroachment. History has shown us what happened in Ayodhya. Despite an undertaking by the highest executive, the mosque could not be protected…The entire situation was normal for the last 30 years. The communities were living peacefully. Why this insistence on performing puja in this part of the mosque?” asked Ahmadi.

Appearing for the Vyas family, senior counsel Shyam Divan and advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, disagreed that the puja in the cellar could potentially create discord. Divan said that not only the access to the two areas of worship were different, but both the district court and the high court passed well-reasoned orders while allowing Hindu devotees to offer worship under the supervision of a court-appointed receiver.

“I submit that this is not a case even for issuance of notice. This is an interlocutory order confirmed by the high court. These are not perfunctory orders but have detailed reasoning that goes into the whole issue,” Divan added.

After hearing the two sides, the apex court refrained from staying the high court order while directing the parties to maintain status quo at the Gyanvapi premises to enable both the communities to offer religious prayers.

The high court, in its dismissal of the mosque committee’s appeal on February 26, had noted that the cessation of worship rituals in the “Vyas Tehkhana”, situated in the mosque’s southern cellar, by the Uttar Pradesh government in 1993 was “illegal”.

According to the high court, the state’s action to stop these rituals was unauthorised, lacking any formal written order. The high court refused the mosque committee’s two appeals that contested the Varanasi district judge’s January 17 order—which designated the district magistrate as the “Vyas Tehkhana’s” receiver—and the January 31 order allowing ‘puja’ in that area. The high court ruled that worship activities in the mosque’s “Vyas Tehkhana”, adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath temple, should proceed.

The development is anticipated to have significant effects on other similar lawsuits that Hindu organisations and petitioners in Mathura and Agra have filed. These lawsuits are a part of what experts have dubbed the “new temple movements”, in which Hindu organisations and individuals have turned to trial courts to file petitions seeking legal remedies for long-standing religious disputes rather than using street mobilisation to push for change.

In all cases, Hindu petitioners argue that medieval-era Islamic structures were built by demolishing temples and demand praying rights. The Muslim sides reject the contention and say that any such legal action violates property and religious laws.

Varanasi, Mathura, and Ayodhya are part of a decades-old ideological project by Hindu groups who argue that medieval-era Islamic structures were built by demolishing temples and demand rights over those structures.

The Supreme Court paved the way for the Ram Temple in Ayodhya in 2019, and the mandir opened on January 22 in an ideological win. Cases by Hindu groups and individuals in Varanasi and Mathura are currently being adjudicated in courts across Uttar Pradesh even as a larger issue relating to the Place of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 has remained pending before the Supreme Court since 2021.

The 1991 Act locks the position or “religious identity” of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, with the exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, and barred any court from entertaining a matter that seeks to alter the religious nature of that place. The Act, however, has not prevented the spree of litigations in recent months for reclaiming places of worship, with the Hindu parties contesting the “religious nature” of such sites.