A “Shivling,” according to the Hindu side, was allegedly discovered during the court-ordered videography investigation of the mosque grounds in the area next to the “wazukhana.” The discovered building, according to the Muslim side, was a “fountain,” however. On September 22, the Hindu side made a request for a carbon date of the artefact they claimed to be the “Shivling.”
The age of an archaeological artefact or finding may be determined scientifically using carbon dating.
The Hindu side’s representative, Vishnu Jain, said: “Shivling is not a piece of the suit property, according to the Muslim side, and carbon dating can’t be done. We have clarified our position on each of these issues. The court’s decision will be announced on October 14.”
On September 29, the Hindu side asked that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) conduct a scientific inquiry into the “Shivling” and carbon date of the “Argha” and the vicinity.
After hearing the arguments from both parties in the Gyanvapi Mosque-Shringar Gauri issue, the court has deferred the decision.
The Muslim side’s attorney, Akhlaq Ahmed, said that the Hindu side’s argument could not stand since it violated the Supreme Court’s ruling preserving the edifice (which the Muslim side claims to be a fountain and the Hindu side claims to be a Shivling).
“We responded to the carbon dating application. It is impossible for the stone to absorb carbon. The object discovered by the commission has to be preserved, according to the Supreme Court’s order from May 17. The item cannot be opened since the SC’s order will take precedence.
The Hindu side claims that while the procedure would be scientific, there will still be object manipulation. The test will include the use of chemicals. On October 14, the court issued an order, and we will follow it, Ahmed told the news agency.
Tohid Khan, a further attorney for the Muslim side, stated: “The court will rule on whether the application for carbon dating is admissible or should be dismissed. It’s a fountain, not a Shivling, that’s there. Still, the fountain can be made to work.
Earlier, an appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to reject a PIL that asked for the creation of a committee or commission headed by a judge to investigate the nature of the structure uncovered in the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi had been filed before the Supreme Court.
In their request, seven worshippers urged the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to determine the type of building on the Gyanvapi site.
On July 19, the Allahabad High Court rejected their request for the creation of a committee or commission to investigate the structure uncovered in the Gyanvapi Mosque. The committee or commission would have been led by a serving or retired judge of the High Court or Supreme Court.
The PIL brought before the High Court requests guidance from a committee to determine if a fountain, as Muslims allege, or a Shivaling, as claimed by Hindus, had been discovered inside the mosque.
The Allahabad High Court erred in denying the request, according to the appeal at the highest court.
The Supreme Court on May 20, issued an order transferring the civil judge’s civil case involving prayer at the Gyanvapi mosque to the Varanasi District Judge.