Thursday, April 25, 2024

Gyanvapi Muslim parties move Supreme Court to allow Wuzu at mosque

Muslim parties in the the Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath dispute have approached the Supreme Court for permission to allow ablution inside mosque premises during Ramadan.

The issue was mentioned before a bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi on Thursday who agreed to list the case on April 14.

The Wuzu area of the Gyanvapi mosque is the centre of the contention since the Hindu parties claim that a Shivling has been found in that spot, with Muslims saying it is a fountain.

The Gyanvapi dispute began soon after the Hindu devotees approached a civil court claiming the right to worship inside the premises of the Gyanvapi Mosque, on the premise that it was a Hindu temple and still houses Hindu deities.

A survey of the mosque was ordered by the civil court under an advocate commissioner. The advocate commissioner then conducted the videographed survey and submitted a report to the civil court.

The Hindu parties on the basis of the survey claimed that one of the objects discovered at the site is a Shivling while the Muslim parties have disputed the same and said that it is only a water fountain.

The suit before the civil court then was transferred to the District Judge by the Supreme Court on May 20 in view of the sensitivity of the issue involved.

The District Court, held that the suit was not barred under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

A Varanasi court found that the suit filed by Hindu parties seeking possessory rights over Gyanvapi Mosque maintainable.

This decision was appealed before the High Court by the by Committee of Management of Anjuman Intezamia Masjid which reserved its verdict in December.

The High Court had lately  asked the Director General of ASI to submit his opinion on whether carbon dating, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), excavation and other methods to determine the age of the disputed object at Gyanvapi mosque, would damage the object.

The District Court,held that the suit was not barred under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.


News Update