“The core question involved in the matter is whether the object found by advocate commissioner on May 16, 2022, is Shivlingam or a fountain, which can be proved only on the basis of a scientific investigation," four women Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak plea in the new petition.
"It is submitted that ASI is the premier authority which can conduct scientific survey of the entire sealed area including Shivlingam to establish the truth in the matter,” stated the pleas filed jointly.
Since ASI conducted a scientific survey of the entire area under the July 2023 orders of the district judge, the applications argued, the same agency ought to be directed to carry out a survey of the sealed area and the “Shivlingam” to ascertain whether it is a fountain or not.
The application, filed through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, alleged that the spot where the Shivling ostensibly existed was surrounded by raising artificial walls that are modern and unconnected with the original building so as to conceal the original religious character of the structure.
“It is further submitted that the area has no religious significance for Muslims as according to them there is an alleged fountain. It is relevant to mention that the said modern construction has been purposefully done to hide the original features associated with the Shivlingam such as peeth, pithika, etc,” said the applications.
“For proper and effective investigation, it is necessary that ASI may be directed to undertake necessary excavation and use other scientific methods around the shivlingam (being claimed by Muslims as fountain) for determining the nature of Shivlingam and associated features without causing any damage to the object after removing artificial/modern walls/floors surrounding the Shivlingam,” added the pleas.
The applications added that “Shivlingam” is an object of worship for devotees of Lord Shiva and followers of Sanatana dharma in general. “The devotees have every right to perform pooja, aarti, bhog of the deity and such right cannot be denied to them,” it stated.
The Gyanvapi case was last heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud on January 16, when the court asked the Hindu plaintiffs to file a formal application after the latter made a request for a survey of the area that has remained sealed under the order of the top court.
On that day, the bench allowed a plea by the Hindu women plaintiffs seeking a directive to the Varanasi district magistrate for cleaning that section of the mosque complex. The mosque management committee did not oppose this plea.
By an order in July last year, the Varanasi district court ordered an extensive survey of the Gyanvapi mosque by ASI to ascertain whether the mosque was built over a pre-existing Hindu temple, holding that the scientific investigation was “necessary” for the “true facts” to come out. The district court order excluded the sealed area.
The Budget session of Parliament gets underway on Wednesday, Jan 31, 2024
A big debate may actually be triggered on the Places of Worship (POW) Act, 1991.
The Hindus have built up a case that the law is against the Fundamental Rights of citizens to 'equality'. On the other hand, a 1994 judgment of the Supreme Court had noted that the 'intent' behind the Act was to ensure that “history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future.”
But Gyanvapi debate could be game-changer !!
A school of thought considered closer to the 'Hindu' side suggests that the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI’s) report implying that a Hindu temple existed where the Gyanvapi mosque now stands in Kashi could be cited now as a piece of evidence to establish that the original character of the structure was that of a Hindu temple.
Advocate Vishnu Jain, who argued the matter for five women devotees claiming worshipping rights inside the mosque, said the POW Act locks the character of a place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947. “But the determination of this character is not barred,” he said, adding: “Offering of prayers inside a structure does not define the character of a place of worship.”
The Muslim side, represented by the Gyanvapi mosque management committee, challenged the Allahabad High Court’s decision to hold these suits maintainable.
According to the mosque management committee, the POW Act, 1991, prevents any party from filing such a suit, which aims to alter the religious character of a place as it stood on 15 August, 1947.
Relying on the 1991 law, the mosque committee has contended that the law prohibits converting, in full or part, a place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination, or even a different segment of the same religious denomination.
Of course, there is another catch. The Act enacted by the Narasimha Rao government is seen in many quarters as 'part of Muslim appeasement' legislation by the then Congress government.
What is Section 5 of Places of Worship Act?
It says, the POW Act not to apply to Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid. —Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the place or place of worship commonly known as Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid situated in Ayodhya in the State of Uttar Pradesh and to any suit, appeal or other proceeding relating to the said place or place of worship.
The Hindu side in the litigation say 'grounds for the challenge' is based on the fact that by "freezing" the nature of places of worship in 1947, actually "prevents Hindus from restoring temples that were destroyed by Muslim invaders and British colonialists".
This, as per the argument, is in violation of the Fundamental Rights to equality and freedom of religion.
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman will present the Interim Budget for FY25 on February 1.
No comments:
Post a Comment