The caretakers of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi on Saturday submitted an application in a local court demanding that the court-appointed advocate commissioner asked to videograph a ‘Hindu site’ located behind the western wall of the mosque be replaced as he was acting in a “biased” manner.
Since the mosque committee objected to the inspection of the area inside the barricade of the mosque, the inspection process was halted on the second day, lawyers of the Hindu plaintiffs said.
This came a day after a team of lawyers and opposing legal parties led by court-appointed advocate commissioner Ajay Kumar Mishra initiated a videographic inspection of the Maa Shringar Gauri site located at the back of the western wall of the Gyanvapi mosque in the Gyanvapi Masjid-Kashi Vishwanath temple complex.
In an application submitted in the court of the civil judge, senior division, Varanasi, the mosque’s caretakers alleged that Mr. Mishra was acting in a “biased manner” and appeared hell-bent on the inspection and videography of those areas in the premises already objected to in writing by them to him on May 6 before the process began. The court commissioner was acting under pressure of the Hindu plaintiffs, the caretakers of Gyanvapi mosque said.
“He is working more like a party on the side of the plaintiffs,” Rayeed Ahmad, one of the lawyers of the mosque committee, told journalists.
Civil judge, senior division, Ravi Kumar Diwakar had appointed the court commissioner after five women plaintiffs filed a suit in April 2021 declaring that they were entitled to have daily darshan, pooja and perform all the rituals of Maa Shringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, Lord Hanuman and other “visible and invisible deities within old temple complex” situated at settlement Plot no. 9130 in the area of ward and police station Dashwamedh.
Editorial | A disturbing order: ASI survey in Gyanvapi mosque
The mosque committee said they had requested the advocate commissioner to identify the Plot no. 9130 before starting the inspection work, but that he did not pay heed to it and went on with the process without identification of the disputed property.
Abhay Nath Yadav, a lawyer for the mosque committee, said the plaintiffs did not provide any description of the plot in the suit.
“Where does it extend from and till where and what are its boundaries?” Mr. Yadav asked.
The lawyer alleged that the advocate commissioner went beyond the court order of videography and started measuring with his fingers some stones of a chabutra-type structure near the barricading outside the western wall of the mosque. “He also started scraping the earth between the stones. We objected. One cannot make any amendment to or change the position of any object but only videograph,” Mr. Yadav told The Hindu.
The advocate commissioner also wanted the locks of the mosque barricades to be opened for videography but the mosque committee objected to it, Mr. Yadav said. The Anjuman Intejamia Masajid has already expressed objection to the idea of carrying out inspection and videography inside the mosque even as the court order has not specified if such an exercise was allowed or restricted.
The Hindu plaintiffs, however, have demanded that the area inside the barricade also be open to inspection.
Jitendra Singh Vishen, lawyer for the Hindu plaintiffs, responded to the mosque committee’s argument that they had not specified the extent or area of Plot no. 9130 by saying that their suit included the entire premises of Plot no. 9130.
“Our claim is of the entire Plot no. 9130. The entire barricading area is Plot no. 9130,” Mr. Vishen told The Hindu.
Mr. Vishen said they would submit an application in court specifying this. On allegations by the mosque committee that the advocate commissioner was working under pressure from the Hindu plaintiffs, Mr. Vishen said they held no merit.
He asked why the mosque committee was objecting to a video inspection of the tehkhana (cellar) of the mosque.
“If they have nothing to hide, why don’t they bring forward their facts and conduct a videography? We are prepared,” he said.
On Saturday, only the lawyers for the mosque committee and the District Government Counsel (Civil) appeared before the court, which has listed the matter for May 9, on which the advocate commissioner and the Hindu plaintiffs would also be heard and submit their applications.
The plaintiffs had in their suit submitted that at the back of the western wall of the mosque, there had existed an image of goddess Shringar Gauri since time immemorial. The plaintiffs had also demanded that the caretakers of the mosque be restrained from imposing any restriction, creating any obstacle, hindrance or interference in the performance of daily darshan pooja, aarti, bhog and observance of rituals by devotees of goddess Maa Sringar Gauri at the site of Lord Adi Visheshwar along with Lord Ganesh, Lord Ganesh, Lord Hanuman, Nandi and other deities.
