HC asks ASI whether Shivling-like structure can be examined safely
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad high court has directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) director general to submit an opinion on whether a safe investigation of the structure, claimed to be a Shivling and found during an advocate commissioner’s survey of the Gyanvapi mosque premises on May 16 in connection with the Shringar Gauri case, can be done through carbon dating, ground penetrating radar (GPR), excavation and other methods.
The court on Friday asked the ASI to respond whether such methods adopted to determine the age, nature and other relevant information were likely to damage the structure.
Justice JJ Munir directed that the report be submitted by the ASI director general by November 21, the next date of hearing.
The high court also directed that this order be communicated to the ASI DG by the registrar (compliance) of the high court within 24 hours.
The high court was hearing a civil revision petition by Laxmi Devi and three others challenging the Varanasi district court’s October 14 order that had rejected the plea for scientific investigation of the Shivling-like structure.
In view of the assertion made by Hari Shankar Jain ,the counsel for the petitioner, that the Varanasi district judge is proceeding with the suit and that may affect adversely the outcome of any possible scientific investigation by the ASI, the court directed that the district judge will fix a date in the suit in the first week of December 2022.
In addition , the court issued notice to the state government, the district administration and other respondents in the case.
In August last year, the petitioner and four other women devotees approached the Varanasi civil court seeking the right to daily worship of Maa Shringar Gauri and other Hindu deities on the outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque.
Acting on their application, the civil court ordered a survey of the Gyanvapi complex by the advocate commissioner, who then video recorded the pro
ceedings at the premises in May this year and submitted a report to the court.The report, among other findings, stated that it was claimed that an object similar in appearance to a Shivling was found. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application on September 22 before the Varanasi district court, seeking scientific investigation to find out the age and nature of the purported Shivling. The Varanasi district judge on October 14 rejected the demand of carbon dating as well as other scientific investigation to ascertain whether the object found during the survey was Shivling or not.
The district judge rejected the application primarily on the ground that the finding by the advocate commissioner, which the plaintiffs claim to be a Shivling, is required to be protected in terms of the Supreme Court’s order dated May 20. The scientific examination sought may damage it, the district judge added in his order.
The petitioners challenged this order of the district judge before the high court on the ground that he wrongly presumed that a scientific investigation in the form of carbon dating or the ground penetrating radar (GPR) would harm or damage the object.
The counsel for the petitioner took the plea that the “order of the district judge is bad in law because it is based on a reasoning that a scientific investigation of the Shivlingam, claimed by the plaintiffs would lead to its damage and that would violate the Supreme Court’s order. They urged that there is no basis to this apprehension because whether the carbon dating, GPR and excavation would indeed damage it, can only be judged, based upon the opinion by the ASI, and not by assumption or conjecture.”
Underlining that one of the opposite parties described the object as a fountain, the plea alleged that the district judge wrongly held that the question involved in the suit did not require ASI investigation and stated that a scientific investigation was necessary to ensure proper adjudication of controversy.