VARANASI: The court of district judge would start hearing of Gyanvapi-Shringar Gauri case (no-693/2021 Rakhi Singh Vs UP government and others) on Monday since all the related files were transferred to it on Saturday in compliance with the Supreme Court’s May 20 order of shifting the trial from civil judge (senior division) court.
District government counsel (civil) Mahendra Prasad Pandey said the district judge court will on Monday make clear the points on which the hearing would start.
Five women devotees, Rakhi Singh of Delhi, Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak, all of Varanasi, had on April 18, 2021 filed a petition seeking daily worship of goddess Shringar Gauri on the mosque premises, in the court of civil judge (senior division) Ravi Kumar Diwakar who had admitted it.
On April 8, the court had appointed Ajay Kumar Mishra as the advocate commissioner for survey of Gyanvapi mosque. The defendants, Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, had filed a petition in the Allahabad high court challenging the order for survey and appointment of advocate commissioner, but the plea was rejected.
The court commission had started the survey of Gyanvapi on May 6, but it was stalled the next day due to protest by AIM, which also demanded the civil judge (senior division) court to change the advocate commissioner saying Mishra was biased. The court rejected the plea to change Mishra but also appointed Vishal Singh as special advocate commissioner and Ajay Pratap Singh as assistant advocate commissioner.
The court commission resumed the survey on May 14 and concluded it on May 16 amid claims of a shivling being found in the wuzu pond of Gyanvapi by the petitioners.
On May 17, the court sacked Mishra following complaints of leaking information and asked special advocate commissioner Vishal Singh to table the survey report on May 19.
On May 20, while hearing the petition of AIM Committee, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the survey order passed in the Gyanvapi mosque case and transferred the civil suit filed by Hindu devotees from civil judge (senior division) to the district judge, Varanasi saying looking at the "complexities" and "sensitivity" of the issue, it is better if a senior judicial officer having experience of over 25-30 years handles this case.
In an important observation, the top court also said that the process to ascertain the religious character of a place of worship is not barred under the Places of Worship Act of 1991.
