The Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath case has taken a new turn as the Varanasi district court recently ordered the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque premises. This decision comes in the backdrop of claims made by Hindu devotees, who approached the civil court asserting their right to worship inside the Gyanvapi Mosque. They contend that the mosque was originally a Hindu temple and continues to house Hindu deities.
On July 21, the district court had directed the ASI to survey the mosque’s premises, specifically excluding the area previously sealed by the Supreme Court, known as the “wuzukhana” or ablution pond. This survey is being undertaken amidst ongoing debates regarding an object discovered during a prior survey of the mosque in May 2022. The central question revolves around whether this object is a “Shivlinga” or merely a fountain.
The Allahabad High Court, on August 3, upheld the district court’s decision to commission the ASI survey. Subsequently, the Supreme Court chose not to intervene in the High Court’s decision, especially after receiving assurances from the ASI that the survey would not involve any excavation or property destruction.
In a recent development, an application presented by Rakhi Singh to the Varanasi court emphasized the importance of preserving evidence related to the Hindu religion. Singh argued,
“if the evidence related to the Hindu religion is destroyed, it would pose challenges in handling the suit and also hinder the ability to arrive at a proper judicial decision in this matter.”
The application further proposed the creation of guidelines to regulate and monitor the number of individuals offering Namaz at the disputed site. Additionally, it called for a directive instructing the Anjuman Committee (the Muslim party involved in the suit) to refrain from any activities that might modify or alter the structures within the Gyanvapi mosque premises.
This evolving situation underscores the complexities surrounding religious and historical sites in India. It emphasizes the importance of a meticulous and unbiased approach to ensure that historical truths are uncovered, and religious sentiments are respected. The case also highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness in contentious matters.