Varanasi court orders ASI survey of premises claimed by Kashi Vishwanath temple and Gyanwapi mosque
In the plea filed in 2019, the petitioner claimed that the Gyanwapi Mosque in Varanasi is a part of Vishveshwar Temple
Varanasi: A Varanasi court on Thursday ordered an archaeological survey of the disputed premises, claimed both by the Kashi Vishwanath temple and the Gyanwapi mosque in the holy city.
The order was given by a senior division civil court on a plea pending before it since 2019, petitioner counsel Vijay Shankar Rastogi said.
In his order, a senior civil judge of the fast track court asked the Uttar Pradesh government to get examined the disputed premises by a five-member team of the Archaeological Survey of India at its expense.
The court also stipulated that at least two members of the five-member team of eminent archaeologists should be from the minority community, Rastogi said.
He said the court gave this order on a plea filed by him as the “next friend” of the self-existing Lord Vishweshvar Kashi Vishwanath, in the deity’s status as a “legal person” under a doctrine of legal fiction.
According to this legal doctrine, non-living entities including banks, corporations and even deities but not mosques are presumed to be living persons for adjudication of any matter involving them and such entities are represented in the court by what is known as their "next friend".
Rastogi said in his plea he had contended that the Gyanwapi Mosque in Varanasi is a part of Vishveshwar Temple and the court has ordered an ASI survey of the disputed area between the two shrines on this plea.
Red Fort violence: Hours after getting bail, Deep Sidhu arrested in connection with FIR lodged by ASI
The Archaeological Survey of India had filed an FIR against the actor for allegedly damaging public property during the farmers' tractor parade violence on Republic Day at Red Fort
Sunni Waqf Board to move Allahabad HC against verdict ordering ASI survey of Varanasi's Gyanwapi mosque
Sunni Central Waqf Board chairperson Zufar Ahmad Farooqui said that the order was "questionable" because no evidence has been produced before the court that suggests that there was a prior existing temple at the site of the mosque