Hindu Side Urges Court for Early ASI Survey of Gyanvapi
In the ongoing legal battle over the Gyanvapi mosque compound in Varanasi, the plaintiffs in suit no. 18/2022, Rakhi Singh and others, have urged the district judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha to allow the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to commence a scientific study of the mosque campus at the earliest. The plaintiffs are seeking the worship of Shringar Gauri and other deities in the mosque compound.
The Gyanvapi mosque management committee, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, had previously filed a written objection against this application in May. They have now requested additional time to file an objection against the fresh arguments presented by the plaintiffs.
As a result, the district judge has scheduled the next hearing for July 14, taking into account these recent developments, as confirmed by special state counsel for Gyanvapi cases, Rajesh Mishra.
During the proceedings on Wednesday, the lawyer representing plaintiffs number 2 to 5, Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas, and Rekha Pathak, Vishnu Jain, stated, Considering our application filed before the court on May 16, we have requested the court to ensure the commencement of the ASI survey of the Gyanvapi campus, except for areas like the ablution pond which have been sealed based on the Supreme Court’s order.
It is significant to note that the ASI survey is an integral part of the ongoing legal dispute surrounding the Gyanvapi mosque compound. This survey aims to provide a scientific analysis of the site, shedding light on its historical and religious significance.
The issue has sparked contentious debates, with different perspectives and opinions. While the Hindu side is advocating for the ASI survey to examine the disputed area, the Gyanvapi mosque management committee has opposed this application, raising objections to the plaintiffs’ claims.
The court’s upcoming decision on whether to allow the ASI survey is eagerly awaited by both parties involved in the case. The outcome will have significant implications for the future of the Gyanvapi mosque compound and the disputes surrounding its sanctity and ownership.
In the meantime, it remains crucial to maintain a balanced approach to the matter, ensuring that all perspectives are given due consideration. The court’s role is to impartially evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, enabling a fair resolution that respects the beliefs and sentiments of all parties involved.
As the legal proceedings continue, it is essential to uphold the principles of justice, religious harmony, and preserving historical and cultural heritage. Regardless of the court’s decision, the Gyanvapi dispute serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between religious sentiments and legal considerations, urging us to find peaceful and respectful solutions to such contentious issues.
