On July 21, a Varanasi Court directed the Director of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to undertake a scientific investigation/excavation of the Gyanvapi premises, excluding the areas sealed by the Supreme Court to ascertain whether the present structure was constructed over a pre-existing Hindu temple. The court further directed the ASI to investigate the age and nature of the construction of the western wall of the structure. The court directed the ASI to submit the report by August 4, and scheduled the case for the next hearing on the same date.
The court’s District Judge, AK Vishwesha, pronounced the order in the Hindu worshippers’ application seeking a scientific investigation of the Gyanvapi premises. The applicants contended that a “glorious, magnificent temple” dedicated to Bhagwan Shiva existed at the disputed site which was destroyed by Muslim invaders.
The applicants further submitted that Aurangzeb, one of the Mughal emperors, issued a Farman in 1669 AD to demolish the Adivisheshwar Mandir at Varanasi. Thus, the emperor’s subordinates demolished the aforesaid Mandir in pursuance of his commands. The applicants submit that Rani Ahilyabai Holkar, the Queen of Indore, built the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir adjacent to the old, demolished Mandir around 1777-1780 AD.
“The followers of Sanatan Dharma i.e. the devotees of Lord Shiva are fighting for restoration of Temple of Lord Adivisheshwar right from 1670 till date. But unfortunately they have not been provided justice,” the applicants argued.
“The building in question, standing in dilapidated condition, clearly speaks about its ancient past and after visualizing the buidling structure, one can easily say that the building is the remains of old Hindu Temple and that the present structure cannot be deemed to be Mosque by any strech of imagination,” the applicants further argued.
The applicants further submitted that the Advocate Commissioner’s survey conducted in June 2022 revealed that the “alleged Gyanwapi mosque is standing on the pillars of an ancient Hindu Temple.” The survey revealed that there are Sanskrit Shlokas engraved on the Tehkhana’s pillars on the southern and northern sides of the structure. The survey revealed that there are Swastik signs, places for keeping sub-shrines of Hindu deities and bells found in the structure, which are “part of Hindu Temple Architecture.” The survey also revealed that the vigrah of Maa Sringar Gauri exists on the western side of the structure.
The survey further reveals that the pillars in the cellar on the structure’s northern side and on the first floor of the structure have been painted repeatedly “to hide the original character of the pre-existing construction/material.” The survey further said that beneath the central dome of the structure, a hollow sound is audible which can only be ascertained by the ASI using modern techniques.
“There are certain artificial walls existing in the southern side of the building in question i.e. the cellar of Vyasji, the cellar on the northern side and other parts of the building in question. A detailed expert scientific investigation is required to understand the nature of construction,” the survey said.
The respondent, Anjuman Intezamia Mosque Committee, contended that the Hindu worshippers’ application was against the law and that the ASI could not be directed to collect evidence. The respondent further argued that if the ASI is permitted to hold excavation of the Gyanvapi premises, then the structure may collapse and evidence may be destroyed.
The court noted that the application seeks to prove that the facts mentioned in the plaint are corroborated through scientific evidence collected by a fact-finding expert agency. The court noted that the ASI is a premier institution, equipped with infrastructure and instruments to conduct a GPR survey and find out the age and nature of the construction.
“In my view, if ASI will be directed to hold survey and scientific investigation at the property in question and submit report then it will help in just and proper disposal of the case and true facts will come before this Court. I am also of the view that objections, filed by defendant no.4 are unfounded and without any substance,” the court said.
“In my view, the law laid down in the above mentioned ruling is not applicable here because scientific investigation by ASI seems to be necessary in this case so that true facts relating to this case can come before the Court and this Court can arrive at just and reasonable conclusion,” the court further added, referring to Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Sri Kant v Mool Chand and others (2019) as put forth by the respondent.
The court allowed the plaintiff’s application and directed the Director of ASI to undertake a scientific investigation/excavation of the Gyanvapi premises, excluding the areas sealed by the Supreme Court to ascertain whether the present structure was constructed over a pre-existing Hindu temple. The court directed that the entire survey proceedings must be photographed and videographed. The court further directed the ASI to investigate the age and nature of the construction of the western wall of the structure. The court also directed that the Director of ASI must ensure that the disputed structure must not be damaged and remains unharmed.
The Varanasi Court allowed the plaintiffs’ application and issued the following directions:
(a) “The Director of ASI is directed to undertake the scientific investigation/survey/excavation at the property in question i.e. at Settlement Plot No. 9130 in the case excluding the areas sealed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.05.2022, 20.05.2022 as well as vide order dated 11.11.2022 in SLP(C) No.9388/2022 titled as Committee of Management Anjuman Intejamia Masajid Varanasi vs. Rakhi Singh & Ors.;
(b) The Director of ASI is also directed to conduct a detailed scientific investigation by using GPR Survey, Excavation, Dating method and other modern techniques of the present structure to find out as to whether same has been constructed over a pre-existing structure of Hindu temple;
(c) The Director of ASI is also directed to conduct scientific investigation in the light of the averment made in this application after associating the Plaintiffs, Defendants and their respective counsels and submit report to this Hon’ble Court upto 04-08-2023 and also to photograph and video-graph the entire survey proceedings;
(d) The Director of ASI is also directed to investigate the age and nature of construction of the western wall of the building in question through scientific method(s);
(e) The Director of ASI is also directed to conduct Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey just below the 3 domes of the building in question and conduct excavation, if required:
(f) The Director of ASI is also directed to conduct Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey beneath the western wall of the building and conduct excavation, if required;
(g) The Director of ASI is also directed to conduct Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey beneath the ground of all the cellars and conduct excavation, if required;
(h) The Director of ASI is also directed to prepare a list of all the artefacts which are found in the building specifying their contents and carry out scientific investigation and undertake dating exercise to find out the age and nature of such artefacts;
(i) The Director of ASI is also directed to conduct dating exercise of the pillars and plinth of the building to find out the age and the nature of construction;
(j) The Director of ASI is also directed to conduct GPR survey, excavation wherever required, dating exercise and other scientific methods for determining the age and nature of construction existing at the site in question;
(k) The Director of ASI is also directed to investigate the artefacts and other objects of historical and religious importance existing in different parts of the building and also beneath the structure which may be found during such exercise;
The Director of ASI is also directed to ensure that there should be no damage to the structure standing on the disputed land and it remains intact and unharmed. Report will be submitted up to 04-08-2023. Put up on 04-08-2023 for further proceedings.”
Comments