Gyanvapi Mosque Survey: Varanasi court's May 18 hearing cancelled due to Lawyers' strike

The Varanasi court will not conduct a hearing on the Gyanvapi court case today, May 18, to conduct proceedings because of a strike by the lawyers. The hearing would have continued had the lawyers from the three sides been present in the court. The Muslim side has asked for two days' time. The survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque complex ended on Monday, May 16, during which according to claims made by the Hindu side, a Shivling has been discovered in the Wuzukhana (Ablution pond). The court subsequently ordered the sealing of the spot where the Shivling was found.

Earlier, the Supreme court backed the order of the Varanasi court and ordered the sealing of the area where the Shivling stands. In addition, the SC bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha also allowed Muslims to offer Namaz and religious observances. 

In another development, the report on the videography survey conducted by the Hindu side will be submitted to the court on May 19, Thursday. The battery of lawyers has sought time of two days to hand over the report. 

Objections to the claims of Shivling discovery 

Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee joint secretary Syed Mohammad Yasin while speaking exclusively to Republic TV said that no Shivling has a 64cm hole in it and further claimed that the Mosque existed at the site much before the temple and it would be erroneous to say the temple was razed to build a Mosque.

Speaking exclusively to Republic Media Network, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi on May 18 stated he will reject the survey report to be submitted before the Varanasi local court on May 19. Owaisi also urged the court to stay the survey proceedings as well as the report as directed by the Varanasi court. 

Asaduddin Owaisi stated, "That order of the lower court is in gross violation of the Parliament Act of 1991. It is a blatant violation of the Supreme Court judgment which is now the law of the land according to our Constitution. Thirdly, they have completely ignored that in 1998, on the same demands, the High Court had given a stay on it. That was a representative suit. And now, in a very clever way, an individual suit was filed." 

Image: PTI, ANI