Gyanvapi: 'Will Move High Court', Hindu Side After Court Rejects Their Plea For Fresh ASI Survey

Varanasi: In a big development in the ongoing Gyanvapi case, a court here on Friday dismissed a plea of the Hindu side seeking ASI survey of the remaining part of the premises. After the appeal’s rejection, the Hindu side decided to move to the High Court.  Speaking to reporters after the verdict,  Hindu side Advocate Vijay Shankar Rastogi said, “The court has rejected our application for an additional survey of the protection of the whole Gyanvapi area by the ASI... We will go to the High Court against this decision...within the time limitation, within 30 days.”

“This decision is against the rules and facts. I am upset with this and will go to the upper court and challenge it... According to the order of 8.4.2021, a 5-member committee was to be appointed to the ASI for the survey, in which one person would have been of the minority community and an expert from the central university. All of them had to conduct the ASI survey. The previous survey was done only by the ASI. The High Court had confirmed that the survey was not in compliance with that order (of 8.4.2021)... We will go to the High Court on an immediate basis...”, he stated further.

He added, "This is a legal proceeding; this isn’t about winning and losing. We will read all the statements and details before making an informed decision. The first track court has passed an order rejecting the application for an additional ASI survey. At present, we cannot say anything, as we haven’t gone through the whole order".

Rastogi had earlier argued that a Shivling of Adi Visheshwar lies beneath the main dome of the mosque and insists that this area, including the Wazukhana where a portion of the Shivling is located, should undergo a comprehensive scientific survey. Rastogi contended that previous investigations were incomplete, emphasizing the need for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a full excavation of the site to uncover all elements of historical significance.

According to Rastogi, there has been no proper survey of the location where the holy Shivling was discovered. The case is being reviewed in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division Fast Track Court Yugul Shambhu. However, Anjuman Intezamia, opposing Rastogi’s plea, highlights that the Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court have intervened, disallowing excavation and instructing the ASI to avoid any damage to the structure.

Gyanvapi Case: What Happened So Far

Arguments were completed on Saturday before the Varanasi court on the plea seeking a survey through excavation in the entire Gyanvapi complex.  The advocates of the Muslim side and the Waqf Board, who are opposing the survey, completed their arguments before Civil Judge Senior Division Jugal Kishore Shambhu, Madan Mohan Yadav , who represents the Hindu said. After hearing the arguments, the court had fixed October 25 as the date of the next hearing. 

On October 16, the Hindu side referred to the expertise of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in excavations to buttress its plea to carry out excavations in the Gyanvapi complex. The Muslim side lawyers had submitted before the court that when the Hindu side has appealed to agitate the case in the high court and Supreme Court, there was no point arguing the matter in the trial court.

They also submitted that when the ASI survey of the Gyanvapi complex had been done once already, there was no justification for conducting another survey.

The lawyers had also stated that digging a pit in the mosque premises for the survey was not practical in any way and could damage the mosque. Previously, the Hindu side had argued that the original place of "Jyotirlinga" was in the centre, under the dome located in the Gyanvapi complex, and that the first survey was incomplete.

Following a July 21, 2023, order of the district court, the ASI carried out a scientific survey of the Gyanvapi premises, located next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple here, to determine whether the mosque was constructed over a pre-existing structure of a Hindu temple.

The ASI had submitted its survey report to the district court in a sealed cover on December 18. The survey was ordered by the court after the Hindu petitioners claimed the 17th-century mosque was constructed over a pre-existing temple.