Police personnel stand guard during the hearing of the Gyanvapi Masjid-Shringar Gauri Temple case, outside the Varanasi District Court
Highlights
- Lawyer Vishnu Jain told the Varanasi court that the Shivling inside the mosque was damaged
- She added that the tool that was used to damage the Shivling was in the storeroom of the mosque
- The apex court had transferred the Gyanvapi case to a district judge
Gyanvapi Masjid case: The Shivling inside the mosque has been desecrated by Muslims, Hindu-side lawyer Vishnu Jain told Varanasi district court on Thursday. The lawyer added that the tool, with which the Shivling was drilled 63cm, was also found in the storeroom of the mosque.
However, the Muslim-side lawyers stated that rumours are being spread that the structure inside the wazu khana of the mosque was a Shivling and that it was damaged.
Meanwhile, the hearing in the case was adjourned till Monday (Monday 30) by the court of District Judge AK Vishevesh. The case was transferred from civil judge (senior division) to district judge, Varanasi, by the Supreme Court on May 19, following objections raised by the mosque committee. The court will decide on the maintainability of the Gyanvapi-Shringar Gauri complex case.
Vishnu Jain told reporters that the Muslim side's argument could not be completed today and that it will continue at 2 pm on Monday (30th May).
"The Muslim side today just read out paragraphs from our petition and tried to say that the petition isn't maintainable. We interjected and pointed out to the court that we've specific rights & all pleadings were made," he said.
Earlier, the court had granted a week's time to both Hindu and Muslim sides to file objections to the report of a court-mandated videography survey of the Gyanvapi mosque premises.
Why was the Gyanvapi case transferred from Supreme Court?
The apex court had transferred the Gyanvapi-Shringar Gauri complex case from a civil judge (senior division) to a district judge, saying looking at the "complexities" and "sensitivity" of the issue, it is better if a senior judicial officer having an experience of over 25-30 years handles this case.
The Hindu side argued that since a court-appointed commission has completed its survey work, the opponents should present their objections to it.
Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee's lawyer Mohammad Tauhid Khan had argued that the writ is not maintainable under Order 7 and Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, hence, it should be dismissed.
On May 16, the lower court had directed the district administration to seal a spot in the Gyanvapi Masjid complex after counsels representing the Hindu petitioners said a Shivling was found during a court-mandated videography survey.
A mosque management committee spokesperson disputed the claim, telling a television channel that the object was part of a "fountain".
He said lawyers representing the mosque committee were not fully heard before the sealing order was announced.
The Hindu side claimed that the Shivling was found close to the "wazookhana"--a small reservoir used by Muslim devotees to perform ritual ablutions before offering the namaz.
(With inputs from PTI)
