Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Gyanvapi | ASI DG Files Personal Affidavit In Allahabad HC, Masjid Committee Granted 10 Days' Time To File Rejoinder

Sparsh Upadhyay
31 Oct 2022 12:20 PM GMT
Allahabad High Court, Grants, Anticipatory Bail, till filing of police report, Man Accused, Inciting Public, Demolish, Gyanvapi Mosque, Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma,

The Director General of Archeological Survey of India today filed her personal affidavit before the Allahabad High Court in the Gyanvapi Case expressing ASI's willingness to abide by what the Court decides regarding the survey of the Mosque complex. The Anjuman Masjid committee has been given 10 days to file a reply to ASI DG's affidavit by November 11.

About Varanasi Court's April 2021 order in which the ASI was asked to conduct a comprehensive survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque complex, the ASI's DG has stated that ASI is competent to take up the survey work if the Allahabad High Court so orders. The Varanasi Court's April 2021 order was stayed by the Allahabad High Court in September 2021.

It may be noted that the Allahabad High Court on October 18 granted a last opportunity to the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India to file a personal affidavit sought by the HC in 10 days.

Our readers may not that the High Court had sought affidavits from the central government and the state government last year as it stayed proceedings in the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir-Gyanvapi Masjid effectively suspending a controversial order of the Varanasi Court that had ordered an archaeological survey of the premises to determine whether a Hindu temple was partially razed to build the Gyanvapi mosque in the 17th century.

The background of the case

Essentially, the Anjuman Intazamia Masazid, Varanasi has challenged (before the HC) the suit filed before the Varanasi Court by the Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar And 5 Others in the year 1991 claiming the restoration of the land on which the Gyanvapi Mosque stands to Hindus.

The Anjuman Intezamiya Masajid Varanasi has also challenged the proceeding before the Varanasi court in which an ASI survey had been ordered last year, the High Court stayed that very order last year in September.

Earlier, the contesting respondents argued before the Court that the petitioner [Anjuman Intazamia Masazid, Varanasi] had initially filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejecting the plaint (of the Ancient Idol Of Swayambhu Lord Vishweshwar) however, they did not press the same for a considerable time and instead of pressing the aforesaid application, they chose to file written statement in the plaint.

It was further argued by the counsel for the respondent that on the basis of pleadings in the suit, the issues were framed by the Varanasi Court. The Counsel also submitted that the property in question, i.e. the temple of Lord Visheshwar has been in existence from ancient times, i.e., Satyug up till now.

It was his further submission that the Swayambhu Lord Visheshwar is situated in the disputed structure, and therefore, the land in dispute is itself an integral part of Lord Visheshwar.

On the argument put forth by the Majid committee that since the plaint was barred by the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the same should be rejected, the respondents have argued that the religious character of the place of worship remained the same as on the day of August 15, 1947, therefore, the provisions of Place of Worship Act, 1991 cannot be applied.


Counsel for Petitioner:- A.P.Sahai,A.K. Rai,D.K.Singh,G.K.Singh,M.A. Qadeer,S.I.Siddiqui,Syed Ahmed Faizan,Tahira Kazmi,V.K. Singh,Vishnu Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent:- C.S.C.,A.P.Srivastava,Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kr.Singh,Bakhteyar Yusuf,Hare Ram,Prabhash Pandey,R.S.Maurya,Rakesh Kumar Singh,V.K.S.Chaudhary,Vineet Pandey,Vineet Sankalp

Case title - Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi v. Ist A.D.J. Varanasi And Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3341 of 2017]

Next Story