A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been moved before the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction to the Government of Uttar Pradesh to seal the entire Gyanvapi premises so that “no damage can be done by non-Hindus/Non-Sanatani to Hindu sign/symbol present inside the premises.” The PIL seeks that the premises are sealed without affecting the Varanasi Court’s July 21 order directing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a scientific investigation of the Gyanvapi premises, excluding the stayed areas.
Furthermore, the petitioners have sought that the entry of non-Hindus is restricted within the Gyanvapi premises till the suits pending before the Varanasi Court are disposed of. The PIL further seeks protection of Hindu signs and symbols found inside the premises, referring to the Advocate Commissioner’s report.
The petitioners have moved the PIL before the court intending to “save the centuries-old remains of Sri Adi Vishweshwar temple (present-day Gyanvapi) in Varanasi.” The petitioners further seek “protection of Shivlingam of Sri Adi Vishweshwar Virazmaan and other visible and invisible deities in the precinct of the temple.”
The petitioner averred that at the disputed site, a magnificent temple used to exist, where Bhagwan Shiva himself established “Jyotirlinga” lakhs of years ago. The petitioner further informed the court that the said pre-existing Hindu temple was destroyed/damaged by the “cruel Islamic” ruler Aurangzeb in 1669. The PIL further states that after Aurangzeb destroyed the pre-existing Hindu temple, Muslims encroached into the premises and built the alleged Gyanvapi Mosque, even though the property vested in the deity and thus could not be a Waqf property.
The PIL further submits that the rights of devotees, under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, are being infringed as the Hindus are not being allowed to have “darshan” within the “old temple complex.”
“The original Jyotirlinga lies beneath the superstructure illegally and unauthorizedly raised by Muslims within the old temple complex (presently Gyanvapi Mosque). The Hindu devotees are not being allowed to have darshan of the deity within old temple complex. The right of the petitioner(s) and devotees in general to worship within the old temple complex guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution Of India is being continuously infringed. The pooja and worship being performed by the Petitioner(s) and devotees remain incomplete without having darshan of Sri Adi Vishweshwara Jyotirlinga,” the PIL submits.
Furthermore, the PIL avers that the disputed structure vests in the deity since time immemorial and that if a person forcibly offers namaz within the premises, the same does not become a mosque. The petitioners further submit that the Hindu devotees have the right to worship Maa Shringar Gauri, Bhagwan Ganesh, Bhagwan Hanuman and other visible and invisible deities within the old temple complex.
The PIL refers to the Hindu signs and symbols found inside the Gyanvapi premises and contend that the same are part of the pre-existing Hindu temple. The PIL claims the disputed structure is standing on the base of the old temple structure. To support their contentions, the petitioners refer to the report of the Advocate Commissioner and submit that various signs of Hindu faith were found inside the disputed structure, including Swastika, Lotus, Trident and other signs which are “sufficient to prove the existence of Hindu Temple.”
Notably, the Allahabad High Court has reserved its order in the case concerning the Muslim side’s challenge to the Varanasi Court’s order directing the ASI to conduct a scientific investigation of the Gyanvapi premises, excluding the stayed areas. The court will pronounce its verdict on August 3 and the interim stay on Varanasi Court’s order would continue till then.
Varanasi Court’s Order Allowing ASI Survey
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 trial 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 trial 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.
Comments