New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday (November 22) issued notice to the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, which manages the Gyanvapi Mosque, and sought its response on a plea filed by Hindu side seeking an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey of the sealed area of the mosque.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, during the hearing, was informed by the Hindu side that a petition has been filed by it seeking to consolidate all suits related to the Gyanvapi mosque case and transfer the suits from the Varanasi court to the Allahabad High Court, however, that plea is not listed for hearing today.
Maintainability of suit by Hindu side needs to be heard on priority: Muslim side
The counsel representing the Muslim side told the bench that its appeal against the High Court order on maintainability of suit by the Hindu side is also pending and it needs to be heard on priority and it is not listed today. The counsel further said that its appeal against the High Court order for the ASI survey is also not listed today and suggested that all the matters be heard and decided together and priority be given to the issue that whether the suits filed by the Hindu side are barred under the Places of Worship Act.
The Hindu side also agreed to the suggestion and said that the issue has to be decided.
Apex Court agreed to list all matters together on December 17
The bench then agreed to post all the matter related to the Gyanvapi mosque dispute together on December 17.
The Hindu side has claimed that a structure was found during the videography survey conducted by the court-appointed advocate commissioner inside the mosque premises and the said structure is a “Shivling”. The Muslim side, however, has rejected the Hindu side claims and has said that the said structure is is a “fountain”.
Varanasi court earlier directed ASI ssurvey of entire mosque except ‘wuzukhana’
The Varanasi court had earlier directed the ASI on the plea of the Hindu side to conduct a scientific survey of the entire Gyanvapi Mosque premises except “wuzukhana”. The pleas filed by the Hindu side claimed that the mosque was built over a pre-existing Hindu temple and that a scientific survey of the mosque complex was necessary to determine whether the mosque was built over a pre-existing Hindu temple.
