In a recent development, the Allahabad High Court has determined that a scientific investigation can be conducted to determine whether the object discovered during the survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque premises is a Shiva linga or a fountain. Importantly, the court emphasized that this investigation can take place without causing any damage to the object in question. This conclusion was reached by a Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I after thoroughly examining a report submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to the court.
The court expressed its confidence in the report provided by the Superintending Archaeologist of ASI Sarnath Circle, Sarnath, Varanasi. According to the court, the report demonstrates the feasibility and convenience of conducting a scientific investigation while ensuring the preservation and protection of the actual site of the Shivlingam. Therefore, it is now possible to proceed with the investigation without any concerns regarding harm to the site or the Shivlingam itself.
The Allahabad High Court has highlighted that the technical and scientific report provided by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has paved the way for a scientific investigation of the Shivlinga without causing any harm to the structure. The court emphasized that this report has provided crucial insights to enable a non-destructive examination of the Shivlinga.
After considering the arguments put forth by all parties involved and reviewing the ASI’s report, the Bench overturned the previous order of the Varanasi District Court, which had dismissed a plea filed by Hindu parties requesting the ASI to conduct a scientific investigation. Allahabad High Court Orders District Judge of Varanasi to Conduct Scientific Investigation of Shivlinga Based on ASI’s Report. The Allahabad High Court entertained a revision plea brought forward by the Hindu side in response to the order issued by the Varanasi District Court in October 2022.
The Hindu parties presented their case before the court, asserting that the object discovered on the premises, following a survey conducted by an advocate commissioner, is a Shiva Linga—an object of reverence for Hindu devotees—and has been present within the area in question for an indefinite period.
They argued that in the interest of delivering complete justice and providing a resolution for the multitude of worshippers devoted to Lord Shiva, it is imperative for the court to instruct the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to determine the nature and age of the object.
The origins of the case can be traced back to Hindu devotees who approached a civil court, seeking the right to worship within the confines of the Gyanvapi Mosque, contending that it is, in fact, a Hindu temple that still houses Hindu deities.
Subsequently, the civil court ordered an examination of the mosque to be conducted by an advocate commissioner, who documented the premises through video recording and submitted a detailed report to the civil court. The report, among other findings, indicated the presence of an object bearing resemblance to a Shivling.
On October 14 of the previous year, the civil court issued a verdict dismissing a plea requesting a scientific investigation to determine whether the object in question was a Shivling or a fountain, as asserted by the respondents.
The decision of the lower court was contested before the High Court, contending that it erroneously presumed that conducting a scientific investigation involving methods such as carbon dating or ground penetrating radar would cause harm or damage to the object.
The petitioner further argued that the application for a scientific investigation did not seek any measures that would be detrimental to the object, and emphasized that the ASI possesses adequate means to investigate the object without causing harm.
The counsel representing the ASI stated that it is necessary to adhere to methods that enable a scientific investigation or survey of the site without inflicting any damage. They emphasized that conducting a scientific analysis would facilitate the determination of the Shivlinga’s actual age.
The counsel representing the respondent raised a preliminary objection concerning the court proceedings, citing an order from the Supreme Court on May 17, 2022, which directed the protection and preservation of the object. Consequently, it was argued that the object cannot be disturbed, and any order mandating a survey or scientific investigation of the site would be in violation of the aforementioned directive.
The Bench overturned the order of the Varanasi court
The Bench overturned the order of the Varanasi court and expressed its viewpoint. It stated that if the trial judge had any concerns about potential damage to the site in the event of a directed scientific investigation, it was their responsibility to seek expert opinions from individuals experienced in such endeavors. The court noted that the trial judge, without gathering specific data or material from a competent agency, hastily concluded that conducting a scientific investigation would likely result in the destruction of the site and the Shivlingam.
The court emphasized that the finding that any scientific investigation would inherently cause harm to the structure lacked support from the relevant evidence on record.
Court Directs Varanasi District Judge to Proceed with Scientific Investigation of Shivlinga Accordingly. It further clarified that the entire process should be carried out under the direction and supervision of the trial court, which would issue any necessary consequential instructions.
Representation in Proceedings: Prabhash Pandey and Vishnu Shankar Jain Advocate for Revisionists, Amitabh Trivedi, Fatima Anjum, Manoj Kumar Singh, Saurabh Tiwari, Syed Ahmed, Vineett Sankalp, and Zaheer Advocate for Muslim Party.
0 Comments