New Delhi : The Varanasi Civil Court order, instructing Archaeological Survey of India(ASI) to survey if Varanasi’s Gyanvapi mosque stands on site of an erstwhile Hindu temple, is violation of law, the CPI(M) Politburo said in its statement.
Section 4 of the Places of Worship)Special Provisions) Act, 1991, prohibits any change to the religious character of any place of worship in the country after August 15, 1947. Higher judiciary should make needful intervention to annul the court order, the Politburo demanded.
Context: The Varanasi court two days ago asked ASI to archaeologically survey the Gyanvapi mosque that stands adjacent to Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi. The cost of such survey would be borne by ASI, the court ruled. The order came on petition filed by Advocate Vijay Shankar and 40 others, claiming the land housing the mosque belonged to the Hindus. The mosque’s managing committee has opposed the ruling.
The petition says parts of the 2000-year old Kashi Viswanath Temple were destroyed in 1669 by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb to set up the current mosque. The plea urged court to rule the Muslims’ possession of the disputed land as illegal.
Court response:
The court asked ASI to inspect mosque premises to ascertain if there took place any superimposition, alteration or addition or structural overlapping on any other religious structure. To come up with findings, it would be essential to examine the age, elevation, drawing, site map and construction materials. A committee comprising 5 archaeological researchers, ideally with two drawn from the minority community, should be set up for the task. An expert shall be appointed oversee the committee and evaluate its report.
The archaeological inspection should not disrupt the Muslim prayers at mosque. If that be rendered impossible at some point, the committee should make alternative arrangements for conduct of the prayers. Inspection of the site would be carried out from 5 pm evening up to 9 at night. Media and general public shall be kept out of the site. Media shall not talk about the survey proceedings, the court instructed further.
