The Secular Supreme Court of India on Tuesday denied permission for Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations at the disputed Idgah Maidan in Bengaluru. The so-called apex court imposed a status quo on the Maidan on a petition by the Karnataka Waqf Board and said, “No pooja, no namaaz as of now.”

“There is no dearth of space elsewhere, hold the Puja elsewhere,” the bench orally remarked while setting aside a Karnataka HC order of last week, whereby a single judge order was modified to allow the state government to consider applications seeking permissions to hold Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations on the land. Court asked parties to agitate the issues before the High Court.

The Idgah Maidan has been at the center of a controversy with both the Karnataka Waqf Board and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike claiming its ownership.

The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by the Karnataka Waqf Board against the Karnataka High Court, which granted the state government permission to consider the application for use of the Eidgah Maidan in Chamarajpet, Bengaluru, for religious activities (primarily Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations) for a limited period beginning August 31.

Notably, the High Court had earlier ruled that the government may grant authorization, but the waqf board appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that such religious celebrations had not been performed in the area “for 200 years.” The court’s three-judge bench issued an interim order for “status quo as of today,” indicating that the festival will not take place on the grounds.

Yesterday, Senior Advocate Kapil mentioned the issue on account of a Karnataka High Court order passed only last week, modifying an earlier interim order, which in effect, prohibited other religious activities apart from Ramzan and Bakrid on the Idgah Maidan and allows the government to consider applications seeking celebration of Ganesh Chathurthi on site

The Karnataka State Board of Auqaf has challenged a decision of the Karnataka High Court whereby it allowed the government to consider applications seeking permission to celebrate Ganesh Chaturthi at the disputed Idgah Maidan site in Bengaluru. 

Senior advocate and former Congress leader Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the Waqf Board, argued before the top court that the Karnataka HC’s order is in violation of the 1964 order passed by the Supreme Court.

Sibal also argued that the Karnataka HC’s order might change the ‘character of the maidan’ and that ‘nod to the puja at the maidan might hurt communal harmony.’

Sibal further read a judgment, saying that just because the land is vacant, it cannot be vested with the government. He says that the Idgah is mentioned in records far back as 1931 and in 1871. “So Possession and Idgah and Graveyard are established,” he argued before the SC.

"This is bound to create religious tensions," Sibal said while highlighting that the Idgah maidan has been used by Muslims for rituals for the past 6 decades or so.

‘What is your apprehension regarding? Is it only for one particular festival that is to be celebrated at the maidan tomorrow or regarding permission for all festivals to be celebrated at the maidan?’ the bench asked the Waqf side.

In response, Sibal reiterated that ‘no other religious festival should be allowed except what we are allowed to do.’

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Dushyant Dave said it is an encroachment on religious affairs. “The Solicitor General before the Division Bench showed an order, did not share with us, which allowed for the Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations on the ground and hence, this urgency. Waqf is an overriding act. It’s an encroachment on religious affairs. Is this the example they are setting on religious minorities that their rights can be tampered with?”

Justice Oka questioned if the land is used earlier for festivals like this. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Karnataka Government, replied in the negative.

Justice Oka further said if you see the order of the single judge, even the single judge has granted liberty to apply for a modification, and instead of doing that you go for appeal.

Rohatgi said that even if the land was not used in the past, it cannot be an argument to say it cannot be used now. “All the revenue entries are in favor of the state. Properties that don’t belong to anyone are of the government. It was a suit for injunction, not for the title. Survey 40 has been noted as Sarkaari Land,” he said.

 Rohatgi continues that a decision was taken by the community to celebrate festivals here. This was in 2006! One of the petitioners present here was party to it, he was jolly well aware of it. For the last 200 years, this land has been used as a playground by children and all revenue records correspond with the state.

He also mentioned that if nobody is the owner, the land vests with the government. There is no issue there, it is common across laws and acts. The Corporation wanted to build a school on the (Idgah) land!

Responding to Rohatgi, Dave said, “If he is wrong he is in contempt.”

Rohatgi further said: “At the end of the day position is it (Idgah land) is open ground, they are allowed prayers for two days a year and children play on the ground. Does it even establish possession? Forget the title!”

He continued that the property belongs to the revenue of the state government. So they can file a suit... 1871 onwards, this property has been used by the corporation. It is vacant land! This should go to a single judge to decide its ownership. The State govt was allowed to celebrate Republic Day and Independence Day on the Idgah land. They were happy with this! If it was their land, can anyone come and celebrate anything they want? The judgment by SC says that the onus to prove ownership is on the plaintiff. If they don't, the law that all vacant land vests with government stands!

Rohatgi: Question is, If there is a graveyard in Delhi or cremation ground, can I be stopped from entering? No one can anyway have exclusive ownership over a graveyard.

SG intervenes and added that in the particular Idgah land, there is no graveyard.

Dave: I want to ask if the minority community will be allowed to perform prayers the same way, I DARE to ask.

Rohatgi: I am not saying I want to celebrate Ganesh Puja inside Mosque!

Sibal: It is an Idgah!

Rohatgi: There is NOTHING there!

Solicitor General of India:

The statutory significance of section 5 of the Waqf act - needs to be pointed out. Their case therein is clean chit. Ultimately this entry has no sanctity indeed because of the state, not the party. The Supreme Court judgment states that to get ownership, they have to go to civil court for the title. They DO NOT GO and the entries confirm it is government land. 

Regardless of religion, a person's property cannot be put in jeopardy simply because the property is included in the list. But the joint commissioner said that the land continued to be in the ownership of the state government. Any dispute between Waqf and the person interested has to be decided by a competent court.

When the land has always remained a government property, the division bench was FULLY justified (vol. in allowing govt to consider applications seeking permission to perform Ganesh Puja at #IdgahMaidan for a limited period). I pray that the #IdgahMaidan be allowed to be used for Ganesh Puja for a limited period. It is open land. I say that the land will turn back to vacant land after 1st September onwards.

Dushyant Dave:

A Chief Minister had given an assurance, yet the Babri Masjid was demolished! Keep that in mind.

Solicitor General of India:

No need to shout. I am not saying an unidentified group of people - I am saying Government managed temple. Bench: Govt should not manage temples. Every temple in south india is managed by the government. This will be overlooked by the government, he adds that the Ganesh puja has nothing to do with permanent structures and involves visarjan.

Dushyant Dave:

Places of Worship Act - says there is an ABSOLUTE bar on the conversion of religious places. The SC has upheld this in Ayodhya. You can't change it like this. This is sacrosanct.

Sibal:

Why do you want to change something which has been done for 200 years?

(Bench discusses inter-se)

Justice Banerjee:

Hold the Pooja somewhere else. Go back to the high court. Hold your horses, see this as forgiveness of Ganpathi. There is no dearth of space, hold the Ganpathi puja elsewhere.

After hearing the arguments presented by both sides, the apex court 3-judge bench comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee, AS Oka, and MM Sundresh asked that the status quo be maintained by both sides as of today and asked parties to approach Karnataka High Court for resolution of the dispute.

Meanwhile responding to the SC ruling Bengaluru Police Commissioner CH Pratap Reddy said, “We’ve deployed an adequate police force. SC judgment will be binding on all of us including the police. We will ensure that the status quo is maintained.”

What is the dispute over the ownership of the 2.5-acre Idgah Maidan in Chamarajpet

The 2.1 acres of land in the middle of Chamrajpet, one of the oldest localities of Bengaluru has been embroiled in an ownership issue. Two months ago, the city’s municipal corporation, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) claimed the playground to be its property. Meanwhile, Muslim organizations asserted that the land actually belonged to the Karnataka State Waqf Board.

What BBMP and the Waqf Board claims

According to the BBMP, the Idgah maidan was identified as a playground and public property belonging to the city corporation in the 1974 metropolis survey. The BBMP further claimed that neither the Karnataka State Board of AUQAF nor any Muslim organization participated in the city’s 1974 survey, nor did any Muslim organization document their claim to ownership of the contested land.

Because the title was not transferred to any Muslim organization, the BBMP claims to have been in possession of the contested land since 2006. According to the BBMP, the authority has also constructed pavements surrounding the Maidan, a public restroom, and a drinking water facility.

Meanwhile, the Karnataka State Waqf Board asserts that the 2.1 acre of contested land is a registered waqf property and that it has been so since the 1850s.

The controversy re-surfaced in June this year after Hindu organizations demanded that the site be made accessible for events such as Independence Day, International Yoga Day, Ganesha Festival, and others.

In the first week of June this year, a newly formed Hindu outfit, Chamarajpet Nagareekara Okkoota Vedike approached civic authority Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) requesting permission to access the Idgah maidan.

In response, the BBMP clarified that the Idgah Maidan in Chamarajpet is a BBMP playground that may be used by all communities with permission from the Joint Commissioner, BBMP (West). The Karnataka State Board of Auqaf, on the other hand, claimed that the land was a gazetted Wakf property. Following this, the BBMP stated that no approvals for events would be granted until the disagreement was settled.

Police install CCTV cameras at Karnataka’s Idgah Maidan, as Hindus question why only Muslims were allowed to use the site

Meanwhile, the Karnataka Police, in partnership with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), decided to install closed-circuit television cameras (CCTVs) around the 2.5-acre Idgah Maidan in Chamarajpet.

The department met with BBMP officials and decided to install CCTV cameras around Idgah Maidan, according to a senior police officer. “Twelve CCTV cameras are being fixed surrounding the site. The cameras come with 4MP Zoom and 4K Clarity features and will be connected to monitor the premises. Chamrajpet police station will have access to the footage,” he said.

The Central Muslim Association (CMA), which presented paperwork and records to the BBMP on Thursday supporting their claim to the site, stated on Friday that while they were unaware of the intentions for CCTVs to be placed there, they would not oppose it since it would boost security surrounding the land.

References:

opindia.com