Court to Decide Whether Gyanvapi Mosque was Built on a Temple Amidst Controversial ASI Survey
The Allahabad High Court has reserved its verdict on a plea challenging the Varanasi district court’s order directing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a survey to determine whether the Gyanvapi mosque stands on the site of a temple. Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker presided over the hearing on the plea filed by Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, the organization that manages the Gyanvapi mosque. The court further announced that the stay on the ASI survey will continue until August 3, when the final verdict on the matter will be delivered.
The contentious issue has sparked intense debate over the historical and religious significance of the Gyanvapi complex. The controversy revolves around the question of whether the mosque was built on the ruins of a Hindu temple during the reign of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.
During the hearing, a senior ASI official assured the court that the survey team had no intention to damage or alter the structure of the mosque in any manner. The official’s statement came in response to the concerns raised by the mosque committee’s counsel, SFA Naqvi, who presented photographs of digging equipment allegedly possessed by the ASI during their initial visit to the mosque premises.
Naqvi also argued that the maintainability of the suit filed by five plaintiffs was pending before the Supreme Court. He pointed out that neither the trust nor the incharge of the temple had raised the issue, but individuals from various parts of the country filed separate suits, indicating the widespread interest in the matter.
In contrast, the counsel representing the Hindu side, Vishnu Shankar Jain, cited the application filed for the ASI survey, which highlighted various signs of the Hindu religion on the walls of the present mosque structure. Jain further asserted that several Hindu artifacts were present inside the mosque, and the superstructure was constructed over the remains of the old temple after its destruction during Aurangzeb’s era.
During the morning session of the hearing, Chief Justice Diwaker requested the Additional Solicitor General of India to arrange for an expert member of ASI from Varanasi to demonstrate the survey process to the court. In response, Alok Tripathi, Additional Director of ASI, submitted an affidavit detailing the survey procedure.
The legal battle took a new turn when Naqvi raised an objection to the fact that the ASI was not included as a party to the suit but was still ordered to conduct the survey and provide its opinion on the matter.
The district court’s order on July 21 had concluded that without a survey report, it was difficult to make a decision on the issue. However, Naqvi contended that the court did not thoroughly examine the materials available before arriving at that conclusion.
As the verdict date of August 3 approaches, tension surrounding the Gyanvapi complex dispute remains high. People from all walks of life await the Allahabad High Court’s decision, hoping for a resolution that respects the historical significance and religious sentiments attached to the site while upholding the principles of justice and fairness. The judgment could have far-reaching implications for communal harmony and heritage preservation in the region.
