NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Gyanvapi mosque management committee on a plea by Hindu petitioners for an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) investigation of the sealed area inside the mosque complex, where a structure claimed to be a “Shivling” was reportedly discovered in 2022. The Muslim side, however, maintains that the structure is a fountain.
The sealed area in question was ordered closed by the Supreme Court in May 2022 after the alleged discovery of the “Shivling” during a court-mandated survey conducted near the mosque’s ablution pond.
A bench of Justices Sury Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed prima facie opposition to the Hindu side’s request for the consolidation of 17 suits, currently pending before two Varanasi trial courts. These suits concern the claim that the mosque was built over the destroyed Kashi Vishwanath temple, and are being heard prior to the Allahabad High Court.
The bench said that it would be consolidate the suits before a single trial court, ideally the District Judge where the main suit is currently pending, allowing the high court to serve as the first appellate forum to reassess the evidence.
The top court further noted that all contentious issues, including the ASI survey of the sealed area and the maintainability of the suits—which the Muslim side contends are barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991—can be heard by the Supreme Court on a weekly or fortnightly basis. A preliminary hearing on these matters has been scheduled for December 17.
The apex court’s directive followed the Allahabad high court’s earlier approval of an ASI survey to determine whether the mosque was constructed atop a pre-existing Hindu temple. However, the high court had excluded the sealed zone from the survey scope.
Previous ASI surveys of the site, conducted under court orders, have reportedly yielded findings that the Hindu side claims corroborate their assertions. However, the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee and the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board have consistently opposed such claims, arguing they violate the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits altering the status of religious structures as they existed in 1947.
