As the district court in Varanasi continued hearing the ongoing Gyanvapi mosque-Kashi Vishwanath temple civil dispute, the Muslim side on Wednesday filed an application seeking that advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, one of the lawyers leading the Hindu side, should be barred from appearing for the plaintiffs given his conflict of interest because of his position as Standing Counsel for U.P. government in the Supreme Court.
This came a day after one of the five original plaintiffs in the suits, Rakhi Singh, filed a similar application before district judge A.K. Vishvesha, alleging conflict of interest on the part of Mr. Jain. This application came a month after the split among the Hindu plaintiffs first appeared in May. Ms. Singh’s uncle, Jitender Singh Visen, claiming to hold the power of attorney for her, had announced at the end of May that they would no longer be engaging Mr. Jain, his father and their team in the case.
Advocate Raees Ahmed Ansari, one of the lawyers for the masjid panel, told The Hindu, “We received a copy of the application filed by Ms. Singh and filed our own application seeking that Vishnu Shankar Jain be barred from appearing for the plaintiffs in the suit in light of his position as a government lawyer.”
Senior Advocate Mumtaz Ahmed, part of the masjid panel’s legal team, added, “He (Mr. Jain) cannot be a government lawyer and appear against the government in a suit. This falls under malpractice and we intend to file a complaint with the Bar Council also about this.”
On Tuesday, Mr. Jain had told The Hindu, “There is no conflict,” adding that he had secured a no objection certificate from the UP government on June 15 to be able to appear for the plaintiffs in this suit.
These developments came as Mr. Jain and his father Hari Shankar Jain on Wednesday continued arguments opposing the masjid panel’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a dismissal of the suit on maintainability.
The masjid panel had taken around three days to make their submissions challenging the maintainability of the suit, filed by five Hindu women, seeking the right to pray at a Hindu shrine (Maa Shringar Gauri temple) adjacent to the Gyanvapi mosque.
The masjid panel had submitted that the suit was barred under the Places of Worship Act of 1991 because the Gyanvapi mosque existed at the disputed location for at least 600 years and Muslims have been worshipping there by offering namaz since the mosque was built.
Explained | The Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath dispute and the current case
In their objections to the masjid panel’s application, filed in court, the Hindu plaintiffs have not only argued that the Places of Worship Act, 1991 allows their suit, but also sought that the “religious character” of the disputed property be established as per the provisions of the Act.
Since the Act freezes the religious character of a place of worship as on August 15, 1947, “parties to the suit are required to prove before the court regarding the religious character of the property as was prevalent on 15 August, 1947”, the plaintiffs argued.
The plaintiffs further argued in their objections that this can be done only by presenting evidence in the suit that has been filed and not under the Order VII Rule 11 application filed by the masjid panel.
Ms. Singh’s lawyer, advocate Shivam Gaur said they will lead arguments against the masjid panel’s application separately after the Jains conclude theirs on behalf of the four other plaintiffs (Manju Vyas, Sita Sahu, Rekha Pathak, and Lakshmi Devi).
The matter will be taken up next on July 14.
