After district and sessions judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha pronounced his order, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Vishnu Jain, said that he would challenge it in the Supreme Court as the Varanasi court had cited the apex court while rejecting the plea.
The district judge’s order said: “Plaintiffs 2 to 5 have requested to allow carbon dating or other scientific investigation by using ground penetrating radar of the ‘shivling’ found during the court commission survey on May 16 to determine its nature, shape and age. In its May 17 order, the SC had ordered to keep it protected. If carbon dating or ground-penetrating radar is permitted and it damages the ‘shivling’, it would be a violation of the May 17, 2022 order of the apex court. If it happens, it can also hurt people’s religious sentiments.”
The court said that issuing a directive to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for this investigation “will be unfair” and “there is also no possibility of any judicial solution to the questions integral to the case by issuing any order. Hence, this application is liable to be dismissed”. The area around the ablution pond, therefore, will remain sealed, as per SC directives.
The plea to carbon-date the purported ‘shivling’ (to ascertain its age) had been moved by four (Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak) of the five women plaintiffs who had earlier filed a petition seeking the right to worship Shringar Gauri and other deities in the Gyanvapi compound (Case No. 18/2022). Plaintiff No. 1 and Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, the Gyanvapi management committee, were opposing the demand.
In its May 20 order, the apex court had made it clear that the trial and all interlocutory and ancillary proceedings in suit No. 18/2022 shall be addressed and decided by the court of the district judge,” the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Vishnu Jain told TOI after the verdict.
“When we had filed an application in the SC seeking a GPR survey, carbon dating of the ‘shivling’ and permission to worship the deity, the SC had directed us to take the case to the trial court, where the initial case is being heard. The issue of maintainability of suit No. 18/2022 was also disposed by the district judge court in view of the same SC order. Thus, we submitted our application before the district judge’s court on September 22,” Jain said, adding that plaintiffs 2 to 5 would now challenge the district judge court’s order in the SC.
Regarding the decision to approach the SC instead of the Allahabad HC, Jain said, “As the district judge has referred to SC order for rejecting our application, it will be rejected by the high court on the same grounds. Hence, we will go to the SC directly.”
Reacting to the district court’s order, AIM lawyer Akhlaque Ahmed said the court had considered their objection that any order to conduct carbon dating of the structure would violate the SC’s May 17 order. He declined to refer to the order as “an AIM victory”, saying “it is a legal procedure and should not be viewed as victory or defeat”.
Plaintiff No.1 Rakhi Singh’s lawyer Maan Bahadur Singh said their “stand is justified by this order” as the court concluded that “scientific investigation of the ‘shivling’ could cause damage to it, which would be against public sentiment as no damaged statue or idol is worshipped in Sanatan Dharma”.
The object claimed to be a shivling had been found on May 16 during the survey of a court commission appointed by the civil judge (senior division). Thereafter, AIM moved the Supreme Court, which transferred the case to the Varanasi district judge, who has been hearing it since September 22.
