The technical and scientific report of the ASI has opened ways for carrying out scientific investigation of the Shivlinga without causing any damage to the structure in question, the Court said.
The Allahabad High Court recently held that scientific investigation to ascertain whether the object found during the survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque premises is a Shiva linga or a fountain, can be done without damaging the object [Laxmi Devi v State of UP].
A Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I came to the above conclusion after scrutinizing the report submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) before the Court.
“Court has no hesitation in observing that the report forwarded by the Superintending Archaeologist, ASI Sarnath Circle, Sarnath, Varanasi, would make it feasible and convenient that scientific investigation can be made to the extent and purport without causing harm to the site / Shivlingam in issue. That way, the natural premise that would follow, would proceed on theme that the actual site of the Shivlingam would remain preserved and protected,” the High Court said.
The technical and scientific report of the ASI has opened ways for carrying out scientific investigation of the Shivlinga without causing any damage to the structure in question, the Court added.
Taking into consideration the report submitted by the ASI and arguments made by parties, the Bench set aside Varanasi District Court’s order of October, 2022 which had rejected a the plea filed by by Hindu parties seeking directions to the ASI to conduct a scientific investigation.
It, therefore, directed the District Judge, Varanasi to proceed in the case and do scientific investigation of the Shivlinga under aegis and guidance of the ASI.
The Court was hearing a revision plea was filed by Hindu side against the Varanasi District Court order of October 2022.
The Hindu parties had moved the Court contending that the object discovered at the site after survey by an advocate commissioner is a Shiva Linga which is an object of worship for Hindu devotees and has been existing within the premises in question since time immemorial.
In light of this, it was argued that with the aim to do complete justice and to provide a remedy to a large number of Lord Shiva worshippers, it is necessary that the Court direct the ASI to find the nature and age of the same.
The case itself began when Hindu devotees approached a civil court seeking the right to worship inside Gyanvapi Mosque, claiming that it was a Hindu temple and still houses Hindu deities.
The civil court ordered a survey of the Mosque by an advocate commissioner, who then videotaped the premises and submitted a report to the civil court. The report, among other things, stated that an object similar in appearance to a Shivling was found.
On October 14 last year, the civil court passed an order rejecting a plea for scientific investigation to ascertain whether the object was a Shivling or a fountain, as claimed by the respondents.
The order of the lower court was challenged before the High Court on the ground that it wrongly presumed that a scientific investigation in the form of carbon dating or use of a ground penetrating radar would harm or damage the object.
The petitioner added that there was no prayer in the application for scientific investigation that would be harmful, and further stated that ASI has sufficient means to investigate the object without damaging it.
The Counsel for ASI submitted that, the methods which can help in carrying out scientific investigation/survey of the site without damaging it should be adhered and the scientific analysis should carried out so that actual age of the Shivlinga may be ascertained.
The counsel for respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the proceeding of the Court in view of the Supreme Court’s May 17, 2022 order directing that the object has to be protected/preserved
Therefore, it was submitted that it cannot be disturbed and any order passed for carrying out a survey or scientific investigation of the site would be violative of the aforesaid order.
The Bench set aside the Varanasi court order.
It said,
“If the trial Judge had any apprehension of damage being caused to the site in case scientific investigation of the site is directed in that event it was obligatory on his part to have sought expert opinion of the persons well versed in carrying out such type of enterprises like the present one. The learned trial Judge, without collecting specific data / material from the able agency jumped upon the conclusion that scientific investigation of the site / Shivlingam if directed to be done will in all probability result in destruction of the site / Shivlingam itself,” the Court said.
Any scientific investigation would have impact of causing harm to the structure is a finding not supported by the relevant material on record, the Court added.
The Court, therefore, directed the District Judge, Varanasi to proceed with the scientific investigation of the Shivlinga.
“The entire exercise shall be done under direction and supervision of the trial court and all consequential necessary directions shall be passed / issued in that regard by it,” the Court ordered.
Advocates Prabhash Pandey and Vishnu Shankar Jain represented revisionists.
Advocates Amitabh Trivedi, Fatima Anjum, Manoj Kumar Singh, Saurabh Tiwari, Syed Ahmed, Vineett Sankalp and Zaheer represented the Muslim party.
