A district court in Varanasi will resume hearing the Gyanvapi case tomorrow. The masjid committee will continue its arguments regarding upholding the right of worship of Hindu petitioners.
Debates representing the Anjuman Intezamia mosque committee are expected to continue until July 12.
Advocate Abhay Nath Yadav, a lawyer for the masjid commission, is expected to submit precedent convictions and legal arguments regarding upholding the right to worship held by Hindu petitioners. submit.
The committee in its appeal argued that the lawsuits by devout Hindu women seeking the right to daily worship at the Shringar Gauri Temple, inside the Masjid grounds, and removing part of the government itself Masjid to restore the temple, is unmaintainable under the provisions of the Places of Worship Act 1991.
READ | Exclusive photos from the basement of the Gyanvapi . mosque complex
So far, after three days of hearings, the masjid committee advisor has reviewed all the passages and arguments in the petition of the Hindu devotees. He also referred to the history of the dispute to argue that the petitions are untenable.
Third, the attorney is expected to delve into the legal nuances of the arguments regarding the Places of Worship Act 1991 and the Supreme Court ruling in the Ayodhya case and other cases that The act of 1991 has been deemed to have legal force.
A hearing in the case is being held before the District Judge and session, Varanasi, with strict restrictions on people entering the courtroom and a dense police presence. Due to the chanting and disturbances that occurred during the first days of the trial in May, the judge directed that only some of the lawyers and litigants in the case be allowed into the courtroom.
During the last two hearings, the Varanasi police stationed themselves strictly near the courtroom, with a heavy police presence and barricades in the hallway leading to the district judge’s courtroom. The media has also been barred from entering the courtroom. Before each hearing, a list of those approved to the courtroom was given to the police officer on duty, and people were prohibited from standing near the courtroom door to prevent any untoward incidents. any.
Speaking to India Today after the final hearing on July 4, Advocate Raees Ahmad, an adviser to the Masjid committee, said that the Muslim arguments could take at least two to three days to come to an end. . He also said that Places of Worship take special action to prevent any such request for the accession or structural change of the masjid.
ALSO READ | Gyanvapi structure is like a mountain, not a Shivling, survey photographer reveals
In addition, the Muslim side also argued that requesting a review of the survey report would also affect the “religious character” of the disputed site, and therefore the court could not go into the details of the report. or what was found in the facility. .
After the Muslim side’s arguments are concluded, the lawyers for the Hindu petitioners will in turn argue that the petitions are upheld and can be heard by the court.
CASE OF GYANVAPI
A petition filed in 1991 in a Varanasi court claimed that the Gyanvapi Mosque was built on the orders of Aurangzeb by tearing down part of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple during his reign in the 19th century. 16th century.
Petitioners and local priests have asked permission to worship in the Gyanvapi Mosque complex. The Allahabad High Court in 2019 requested a stay of an ASI survey requested by the plaintiffs.
The current controversy began when five Hindu women sought to regularly worship Shringar Gauri and other idols in the Gyanvapi mosque complex.
They argued in the plea that the masjid facility was “not a real masjid” because the property was not dedicated as a waqf but was forcibly built on top of existing temples. In addition, they sought to remove the “encroachment” and restore the temple of Shringar Gauri.
In April, a Varanasi court ordered a filming survey of the Gyanvapi Masjid complex. The Hindu side, after surveying, claimed that a ‘Shivling’ was found at the wazukhana of the mosque.
The Muslim side then went to the Supreme Court asking them to decide on the viability of the defense based on the context of the Places of Worship Act. Their lawyers also examined the highest court for the leaked investigative report to the media despite the court order against it and accused the Hindu side of leaking the report to change the wall. art.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court moved the case from the civil court to the district court, citing the “sensitive” and “complex” of the case.
— END —
