Varanasi: 'Define Gyanvapi structure nature'

VARANASI: A plaintiff in the Shringar Gauri case on Tuesday requested the district court that the nature of Gyanvapi structure should be defined first, challenging the bid of Anjuman Intezamiya Masajid - the Gyanvapi mosque management committee - to seek relief under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Lawyers of Rakhi Singh, the plaintiff No 1, said: "First of all, it should be defined whether the structure is a temple or a mosque?"
The next hearing in this case - no. 693/2021 Rakhi Singh versus UP government and others - seeking worshipping rights at Shringar Gauri in Gyanvapi mosque compound, will take place on Thursday in the court of district judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha.
Carrying forward the arguments against AIM's bid of challenging the maintainability of the case, Singh's lawyers including Maan Bahadur Singh, Shivam Gaud and Anupam Dwivedi, said: "We are not seeking any relief against the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, as it is not applicable in the case of Shringar Gauri where worshipping continued till the UP state and local administration stopped it in 1993 without any written order."
Singh said, "Because AIM has raised the issue of applicability of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, in this case, we are giving our reply. The Gyanvapi structure, which is called a mosque, is constructed over the foundation of a temple. First of all it should be defined whether the structure is a temple or a mosque. Only a civil court can ascertain the nature of the Gyanvapi structure."
"Even after the destruction of any idol, its divinity and endowment made for it never ends," said Singh.
He added, "We have demanded that no existing structure of the deities should be disturbed further in the Gyanvapi compound. We mentioned all these points in reply to the questions raised by the AIM in its arguments while challenging the maintainability of the case. We reiterated that our only demand is to seek worshipping rights at Shringar Gauri."
Plaintiff No 2, Laxmi Devi's advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya also presented his submission by mentioning the difference in the nature of places of worship and places of prayer. Referring to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, he said that a place remains a temple after 'pran-pratishtha' (establishing the deity) till the 'visarjan' (immersion) of the idol is done. Gaud said that due to the delayed beginning of hearing of the case, the arguments of plaintiff No 1 could not be completed.
The court has fixed July 21 as the next date of hearing, when it is expected that the submissions from plaintiff No 1 would be completed, he added.