On Friday, the Varanasi Court denied the Hindu worshippers’ request for carbon dating of the “Shivling” allegedly discovered on the grounds of the Gyanvapi Mosque. The case involves a petition submitted by five Hindu ladies asking for permission to worship Hindu gods whose idols they claim to have discovered on the Gyanvapi mosque’s exterior wall.
The Hindu petitioners stated that a “shivling” was found during the course when the court ordered for a camera inspection of the mosque grounds. In response, the Muslim side asserted that the object was a component of the fountain.
After hearing the Anjuman Intezamia Committee object to the plea brought by Hindu worshippers, and the same was rejected by the District Judge AK Vishvesha. The Varanasi Court stated that it would not be proper to instruct the Archaeological Survey of India to decide the issues raised by the suit by means of this judgment.
Hindu Worshippers’ attorneys had argued before the court that the building, the “Shiva Linga” is a piece of the suit/case property because the original pleadings state that the suit relates to visible or invisible deities, and since the alleged Shiva Linga was discovered during the court-ordered survey, it would undoubtedly be a piece of suit property.
It was made clear that the Court has the authority to form a commission for scientific research under Order 26 Rule 10A of the CPC. The mosque committee has since submitted their response to the dispute. A court permitted a camera inspection of the mosque in May, and the results revealed the presence of an oval object there.
The item, according to Muslims, is a fountain in the wazu khana, or ablution tank, and not, as the Hindu side claims, an image of the Hindu god Shiva. The civil court mandated the sealing of the location where the oval item was discovered based on the plaintiff’s argument.
The Muslim side refuted the assertion and asserted that the mosque is Waqf property. The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee had filed an application, but District Judge AK Vishvesha had rejected it on September 12 and declared that the five women’s case was “maintainable” and could be heard further.
