Prayagraj. Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Pritinkar Diwakar completed the hearing on Thursday in the matter of scientific survey of Gyanvapi campus in Varanasi. After the completion of the hearing at around quarter to five, he said that the verdict would be pronounced on August 3. Till then the survey will be banned. Before this, the temple and the mosque side argued fiercely. Historical facts were kept along with legal facts.
ASI and the state government kept their side
The Archaeological Survey of India and the State Government presented their stand. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain of the temple side said that the temple spire has been covered with a dome and the Jyotirlinga with a new construction. On May 16, 2022, the Advocate Commissioner conducted the survey. Many facts came to the fore. There is a swastika on the pillar, symbols of a Hindu temple have been found. He said that ASI has the instrument, can investigate. They have expert engineers. This was done in the Ram Mandir case. The mosque side reiterated that the matter was not maintainable under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Change is prohibited.
What did Anjuman Intejamia’s lawyer say?
Senior advocate SFA Naqvi, appearing for Anjuman Intejamia Varanasi, said that there is a stay on the change in the status of religious places on 15 Aug 47. Under Section 3 of the Act, no person will be able to change the nature of the place of worship. The suit filed in 2021 is bar from this Act (Places of Worship Act), not maintainable. deserves to be rejected. This is the condition of the building since 1947, which cannot be changed. The demand for an ASI probe is an attempt to collect evidence.
By filing suit seeking to collect third party evidence. There is a demand for excavation in the application and the court order also mentions about the excavation. Court cannot collect evidence. The plaintiff has to present evidence. Prior to this, Prabhash Tripathi, counsel for Vadini (Rakhi Singh and others) said that there are photographs, from which it is clear that there is a temple. The High Court has said in the verdict that the plaintiff has the legal right to see Shringar Gauri, Hanuman, Ganesha.