Gyanvapi Mosque Dispute: Allahabad High Court stays ASI survey in mosque

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday stayed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque. It is worth mentioning that the Varanasi lower court has allowed the ASI survey in the Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi Mosque complex to ascertain if any temple ever existed in place of the mosque.

Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh):The Allahabad High Court on Thursday stayed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque. It is worth mentioning that the Varanasi lower court has allowed the ASI survey in the Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi Mosque complex to ascertain if any temple ever existed in place of the mosque. Today, the Allahabad High Court has given its decision on the petition of the Sunni Waqf Board.

A Varanasi fast-track court of senior division civil judge had on April 8 this year ordered the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a comprehensive physical survey of the complex of the two shrines to determine if any temple was demolished to build the mosque adjacent to the Kashi Vishvanath temple. The Varanasi court's order had been challenged by Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board and Varanasi's Anjuman Intazamia Masjid.

Justice Prakash Padia of the Allahabad High Court had reserved his order after hearing counsel for the petitioners, the Central government, and the state government. The petitioners' counsel had earlier contended that the Varanasi court's order was not legally tenable because the very suit on which the lower court gave its order was non-maintainable.

The counsel contended that Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, bars the filing of any suit or instituting any legal proceeding in any court seeking any change in the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. As per the 1991 Act, no relief could have been sought or given on any plea seeking any change in the status of any religious place as it existed on August 15, 1947, the petitioners' counsel contended.