The Allahabad High Court has extended the stay on Varanasi Court’s order till tomorrow, July 27. The case will be heard tomorrow at 3:30 pm. On July 21, the Varanasi Court directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a scientific investigation of the Gyanvapi premises, excluding the stayed areas.
Earlier today, Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker called for an ASI official to appear before the court to explain the structure and details of the proposed survey at 4:30 pm, July 26. The court had expressed “strong doubts” concerning the ASI survey to be conducted at the Gyanvapi premises.
In compliance with the court’s directions, an ASI official appeared before the court to explain the technicalities involved in technologies that might be used for conducting the survey. The court called the ASI official to the dais and asked him about the Radar Imaging method. The court inquired about the success rate of the method. The ASI official responded, “It can go up to 10 metres deep in the ground and things also depend upon the soil.”
The ASI official further informed the court that an ASI team commenced the survey work on Monday morning (July 24) at about 9 am. The court asked, “How much work have you done?” The ASI official replied, “We have just started. We don’t know the exact site.” Furthermore, the ASI has filed an affidavit in the case. The ASI further informed the court that a team from IIT Kanpur would be called to conduct a GPR survey and a Radar survey.
The court noted the ASI’s affidavit and said, “The Varanasi District Court granted relief to the plaintiff. Supreme Court reduced the relief. ASI’s affidavit further reduces the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs.”
Thereafter, the Muslim side’s counsel, Senior Advocate SFA Naqvi, requested the court to grant it two days of breathing time and argued that they need to seek technical assistance. The counsel remarked, “What is the hurry? All of a sudden as if heavens are falling. They are doing it at the speed of a jet. We are not taking away the property.”
The Chief Justice responded, “If there is no progress in the suit, the client might be pressing (for relief). That happens all the time with lawyers.” However, Naqvi said, “Presently there is no urgency.” The Chief Justice remarked, “What if the suit is decided? It is the Plaintiff’s choice when he wants to pursue the matter.”
The case will now be heard tomorrow, July 27. The Allahabad High Court has extended the stay imposed on the Varanasi Court’s order till tomorrow.
Background
On July 25, the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee moved the Allahabad High Court challenging the Varanasi Court’s order directing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a scientific investigation of the Gyanvapi premises, excluding the stayed areas.
On July 24, the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, passed the order to allow some breathing time to the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee to move the Allahabad High Court to challenge the Varanasi Court’s order.
In proceedings before the apex court, the Muslim side’s counsel, Huzefa Ahmadi, argued that the excavation of the structure would cause irreversible damage to the structure. The counsel further alleged that the trial court’s order contravened the Supreme Court’s earlier order deferring the scientific investigation to be carried out on Gyanvapi premises.
However, the Hindu side’s counsel, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, informed the court that the Supreme Court’s earlier order was in the context of the ‘Shiva Linga’ found in the Gyanvapi premises. The counsel further submitted that the trial court’s order has specifically excluded the ‘Shiva Linga’ from the scope of ASI’s scientific investigation.
The ASI’s counsel Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta concurred with advocate Shyam Divan’s submissions and said that the top court’s previous order concerned the carbon dating of the ‘Shiva Linga,’ which the Muslim side claims is a fountain. The Solicitor General submitted that the court’s earlier order was in view of the possible damage to the structure, however, the trial court’s order does not relate to any ‘invasive procedure.’
On July 21, a Varanasi Court directed the Director of the 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 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.
