Supreme Court to hear plea against Gyanvapi shivling survey on May 19

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to consider on May 19 a plea against the Allahabad High Court's order of a “scientific survey” of the 'Shivling', which was claimed to have been found inside the Gyanvapi mosque during the videography survey of the premises in May, 2022.

A single bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra on May 12 had overturned the earlier decision of a Varanasi court, which had rejected the plea made by some Hindu women saying that it could ‘damage’ the structure which would be in violation of the Supreme Court order for safe keeping and preservation of the 'Shivling’.

On Thursday, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi mentioned the matter before a bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud for urgent hearing as the process of investigation including carbon dating would start by Monday.

Also Read | Varanasi court admits plea seeking ASI survey of entire Gyanvapi Mosque premises

The court then decided to hear the matter on Friday, May 19.

Acting on a challenge made the Hindu women, the HC had directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a scientific investigation through carbon dating to ascertain the age of the ‘Shivling’ without causing any damage to it.

The court had earlier directed the ASI to file a report stating if the carbon dating of the ‘Shivling’ could be done without causing any damage to it.

The ASI had submitted its report to the court in a sealed cover.

A revision application was filed against the Varanasi court's order of October 14, 2022 that had rejected Hindu sides' plea for conducting a scientific assessment of 'Shivling' found during a survey on May 16, 2022.

A group of Hindu women, led by advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Vishnu Shankar Jain, who sought permission for prayer at the complex, contended when the Muslim side is describing the 'Shivling' as a fountain, scientific investigation was required to be carried out for proper adjudication of the controversy.

They claimed that the district court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction and rejected the application on basis of "conjectures and surmises without appreciating the facts and law applicable in the case".