The Supreme Court has said that it would hear after two weeks, a petition seeking directions to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a survey of the sealed area and the purported ‘Shivling’ found inside the Gyanvapi Mosque complex.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud tagged the petition with similar pleas related to the matter, which would be heard after two weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Filed by the Hindu side (plaintiff), the plea sought scientific investigation of the sealed area in the same manner as being done in the remaining complex.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It further sought directions to the ASI to undertake scientific investigation of the purported Shivling and submit a report on the nature and age of the structure and whether or not it was a fountain, as claimed by the Mosque committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The petition contended that the purported Shivling was found in a pond full of water around which walls had been erected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It said it was strange that Muslims were using the pond for their Wazu purposes, even though it was known to them that there was a ‘Shivling’, an object of worship by Hindus, in the pond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It further noted the claim made by the Mosque committee that the article found during survey was a fountain and not a ‘Shivling’.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The petition said the ASI has been carrying out a survey of the premises since August 4, in compliance with an earlier court order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Since the ASI team was already present at the site with all the necessary instruments, they could be asked to survey the sealed area too, it added.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Supreme Court has said that it would hear after two weeks, a petition seeking directions to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a survey of the sealed area and the purported ‘Shivling’ found inside the Gyanvapi Mosque complex. The Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud tagged the petition with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":286236,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[246,64],"tags":[121653,115706,103199,118763,128471,20232,93676],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2022\/10\/06182154\/Supreme-Court-SC-collegium-Dr-Abhishek-Atrey-min.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321383"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=321383"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321383\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/286236"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=321383"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=321383"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=321383"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}