Gyanvapi Mosque Case: The Gyanvapi Masjid-Shringar Gauri dispute will be heard in the district court for the first time today after it was transferred from the sessions court. The case will be open for the first time in the court of District Judge Ajay Kumar Vishwesh and the case can also be heard daily as the Supreme Court has directed the district court to complete the hearing in 8 weeks.
Actually, the Hindu side demands that the wall in front of Nandi should be demolished, while the Muslim side argues that the Shivling which is being told is a fountain. The Hindu side has demanded that the investigation of the symbols of the temples found in the mosque should be carried forward, but the Muslim side argues that there should be no sabotage or investigation in the mosque.
Mahant Vice Chancellor of Kashi Vishwanath temple will file an application for worship
In such a situation, the district court will now hear both the sides afresh. Meanwhile, Mahant Vice-Chancellor of Kashi Vishwanath Temple will file an application in Varanasi Court for worship at Gyanvapi, while the Arrangement Committee will demand legal action in the matter of leak of survey report. The first hearing on the Gyanvapi dispute in the district judge’s court today – Mahant of Kashi Vishwanath temple will also file a case in Varanasi court for worship of Shivling.
What was the important observation of the Supreme Court?
The counsel for the Muslim side referred to the Places of Worship Act, 1991. He said that the character of a religious place cannot be changed under Section 3 of the Act. On this, the bench’s chairman Justice Chandrachud interrupted him and said that trying to find out the religious character of a place is not a violation of section 3. Giving an example, he said that if a Christian religious symbol cross is placed in a Parsi place of worship and the matter comes to court, then the judge can examine the religious status of that place.
The judges also made it clear that referring the matter to the district judge does not mean that he is making any negative remarks on the work of the senior division civil judge who is hearing the case so far. Considering the complex legal questions of the case, it is being referred to the District Judge as he has 25 to 30 years of experience in civil matters.
Read this also.