The Supreme court has transferred the case to District court and stated that the case should be tried before a senior and experienced judicial officer of UP Higher Judicial Service. It added that adequate arrangements need to be made for observance of wuzu.
Postponing the court hearing by a day, the apex court had earlier directed the trial court in Varanasi to not proceed with the hearing till Friday. All eyes are particularly on the Gyanvapi court hearing in SC today as it will set precedent to the Mandir-Masjid debate raging in the country.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court had directed the district magistrate of Varanasi to ensure the protection of ‘Shivling’ in the Gyanvapi-Shringar Gauri complex and lifted the restriction on the number of Muslims that can offer namaz at the Gyanvapi mosque.
NewsX on Thursday accessed the Gyanvapi mosque survey report, which revealed some startling revelations. As per reports, lotus and flower motifs can be seen on the walls of the Gyanvapi mosque. The elephant trunk is clearly visible. Two damaged pillars have been found in the complex. Remnants of a Hindu temple can be seen, as per the report.
Some other observations mentioned in the report include the removal of water from the ablusion pond, the discovery of a round-shaped black object 2.5 ft in length. The object was further examined to be 4 ft in length. There was also a discrepancy about how long ago the fountain had been submerged and not in use.
SC on Gyanvapi case
Order: Unless adequate arrangements for observance of wuzu has been made by the District Magistrate, we request the District Magistrate, in consultation with the parties, to make appropriate arrangements for the observance.
Gyanvapi case transferred by SC
Justice Chandrachud stating the order : Having regards to complexities involved in civil suit & the sensitivity we are of the view that the suit before the Judge, Varanasi should be tried before a senior and experienced judicial officer of UP Higher Judicial Service.
Justice Chandrachud: Ascertainment of religious character is not barred
Ahmadi : Why did you appoint a Commission? To find out if there are deities etc. This is an extension of bar under Section 3.
Chandrachud : But the ascertainment of religious character is not barred. Suppose there is an aghyari. And there is a cross. Does the presence of cross not make the place an aghyari? Does the presence of cross make it a Christian place? Such hybrid nature are not unknown in India.
Muslim side: Absolute bar on religious character of a place of worship
Ahmadi : Your lorships have seen the objectives of the Act, it is not to allow controversies like this to fester.
He reads Section 3. Points out it is an absolute bar on religious character of a place of worship and there is no exception to this
J Chandrachud: This is a worshippers suit.
Ahmadi : The prayer in the suit is to change of religious character..
J Chandrachud : The earlier suit is a title suit. This is a worshippers suit.
Ahmadi : Which makes it worse. Without a declaration you cannot seek a right
Muslim side: The status quo has been altered.
J Chandrachud : Why namaz is not allowed?
Ahmadi : Namaz is allowed. But the area was used for wazu. The entire area has been sealed. There are police and iron gates all over. The status quo has been altered.
Muslim side: According to us, it is a fountain
Ahmadi : While the Commmisison is in progress, there is an application moved by plaintiff ex-parte, which relies on confidential proceedings of Commission to suggest a #Shivling has been seen. According to us, it is a fountain.
Vaidyanathan : I have serious objection
Heated debate over Commission leaks
Justice Chandrachud : We must tell the other side that the selective leaks must stop. It should be submitted to the court. Do not leaks things to the press. You must present it to the judge.