Former Archaeological Survey of India Regional Director K. K. Muhammed has urged Muslim leaders to voluntarily hand over the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Eidgah mosque in Mathura to the Hindu community, reviving a sensitive argument at the centre of two of the country’s most watched religious property disputes.
Muhammed, an archaeologist who has long argued for a negotiated settlement at sites tied to major Hindu religious claims, said the two places carried exceptional significance for Hindus and should be resolved through community initiative rather than prolonged confrontation. His appeal comes as both disputes remain entangled in litigation, with courts examining questions of worship rights, surveys, maintainability of suits, historical evidence and the scope of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
The former ASI official framed his appeal as a bid for social reconciliation, contending that a voluntary transfer would lower communal tensions and remove the cases from the realm of political mobilisation. He has made similar arguments in the past, including after the Ayodhya dispute, where he supported the view that archaeological evidence pointed to a pre-existing temple structure beneath the demolished Babri Masjid.
His comments are likely to draw sharply divided responses. Hindu litigants in both cases have maintained that the structures stand on sites of deep religious importance and have sought legal remedies ranging from worship rights to removal of mosque structures. Muslim bodies have opposed those claims, arguing that the mosques are protected places of worship and that attempts to alter their status undermine legal protections and communal peace.
The Gyanvapi dispute has moved through several legal stages since Hindu women worshippers sought year-round access to pray before Maa Shringar Gauri and other deities within the mosque complex. A court-ordered scientific survey of the complex, excluding the sealed wuzukhana area, later became a major point of contention. The ASI report submitted to the Varanasi court stated that architectural remains, inscriptions, reused pillars and sculptural fragments indicated the existence of a large Hindu religious structure before the present mosque was built.
The mosque management committee has contested the interpretation of those findings and has maintained that the litigation is barred by the Places of Worship Act. The wuzukhana remains sealed after a structure found there was described by Hindu petitioners as a shivling and by the Muslim side as part of a fountain. A plea seeking an ASI survey of that area, excluding the disputed structure, has also been pending, with the Allahabad High Court adjourning the matter while related issues engage the Supreme Court.
Another flashpoint in the Gyanvapi case concerns worship inside Vyas Ji Tehkhana, the southern cellar of the complex. A Varanasi court allowed Hindu prayers there on 31 January 2024, after which the mosque committee challenged the order. The Supreme Court declined to halt the prayers and directed that the existing arrangement should not be disturbed without its permission, while also noting that Muslim prayers in the mosque were continuing.
The Mathura dispute concerns the Shahi Eidgah mosque adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple complex. Hindu parties have filed 18 suits seeking possession of the disputed land, removal of the mosque structure, restoration of a temple and a permanent injunction. They claim the mosque was built during the reign of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb after the demolition of a temple marking Lord Krishna’s birthplace.
The Allahabad High Court ruled on 1 August 2024 that the suits filed by Hindu worshippers were maintainable, rejecting objections from the Muslim side based on the Limitation Act, the Waqf Act and the Places of Worship Act. The litigation has since continued through applications and procedural issues, with hearings scheduled before the High Court and related petitions also reaching the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has separately stayed the Allahabad High Court’s order appointing a court commissioner to inspect the Shahi Eidgah mosque. That stay has remained important because any physical inspection or survey of the mosque complex could intensify both legal and political tensions. At the same time, the Supreme Court has allowed Hindu plaintiffs to add the Union and the Archaeological Survey of India as parties in the main suits, after amendments were permitted by the High Court.
Muhammed’s intervention carries weight because of his professional background, but it also enters a field where legal process, historical claims and religious sentiment are tightly intertwined. His supporters see his position as a pragmatic route to closure, while critics argue that voluntary handover appeals place pressure on one community before courts have reached final findings.
