New Delhi, In a significant legal development, the Indian Supreme Court on Monday declined to stay a Varanasi district court’s decision that permitted Hindus to offer prayers in the sealed basement of the Gyanvapi mosque complex, a ruling that has stirred considerable attention and controversy.

According to Kashmir Media Service, this refusal comes against the backdrop of a January 31 order by the Varanasi court, which had sanctioned Hindu devotees the right to perform prayers within the basement area of the mosque complex. The decision was subsequently appealed by Muslim parties, leading to a challenge against the Allahabad High Court’s verdict, which had earlier dismissed objections against the Varanasi court’s ruling.

During the hearing, presided over by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, the apex court emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo to allow both communities the ability to engage in their respective prayers.

The Gyanvapi mosque, which contains four cellars in its basement, has been a focal point of contention, particularly after the Vyas family, claiming hereditary rights as priests, advocated for the ability to offer prayers in one of these cellars.

The Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee, responsible for managing the mosque, reported being uninformed about the commencement of Hindu prayers within the complex. This led to an urgent appeal to the Supreme Court on February 9, following the Varanasi court’s directive, though the petitioners were advised to seek recourse at the Allahabad High Court.

The Allahabad High Court’s February 26 dismissal of the challenge to the Varanasi court’s order, citing “prima facie evidence” of Hindu prayers historically conducted at the site until 1993, paved the way for the current Supreme Court proceedings.

Representing the Muslim appellants, senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi voiced concerns that permitting Hindu rituals within the mosque premises could potentially “fester some discord,” citing historical precedents of violence despite assurances of peace. Ahmadi critiqued the rapid enforcement of the Varanasi court’s order by the Uttar Pradesh government before an opportunity for appeal could be made, highlighting a period of relative calm over the past three decades that is now under threat.

The Supreme Court’s decision to not stay the Varanasi court order underscores the complexities surrounding the Gyanvapi mosque case, reflecting broader religious and historical sensitivities within India.