The Supreme Court will hear a petition filed by Hindu parties to consolidate all cases relating to the Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath issue that are now pending before a Varanasi court on April 21.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain brought the case before a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala for urgent hearing.
Jain said that the Varanasi district court had not passed an order on the matter.
The Supreme Court informed the petitioner that the matter would not be removed from the list on its next hearing date.
The Gyanvapi issue started when Hindu worshippers approached a civil court for the right to worship inside the premises of the Gyanvapi Mosque, arguing that it was formerly a Hindu temple and still holds Hindu deities.
An advocate commissioner was appointed by the civil court to conduct a survey of the Mosque. Following that, the advocate commissioner then conducted the videotaped survey and submitted a report to the civil court.
According to the survey study, Hindu parties believe that one of the objects discovered at the site is a Shivling, while Muslim parties allege that it is simply a water fountain.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court transferred the civil court case to the District Judge on May 20 due to the sensitivity of the topic involved.
On September 12, the District Court ruled that the complaint was not barred under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.
A Varanasi court ruled on November 17 that the complaint filed by Hindu groups demanding possession of the Gyanvapi Mosque was maintainable. The Committee of Management of Anjuman Intezamia Masjid appealed this ruling to the High Court, which reserved its decision in December.
In October, a Varanasi Court dismissed a plea filed by Hindu parties seeking directions to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) conduct a scientific investigation to determine whether the object discovered during the survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque premises is a Shivling or a fountain. This resulted in an appeal before the Allahabad High Court.
The High Court further asked the Director General of ASI provide his view on whether carbon dating, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), excavation, and other technologies used to determine the age of the contested artefact at Gyanvapi mosque would cause damage to the object.
