ASI begins surveying Gyanvapi Mosque from early Friday morning, despite the mosque's side approaching the Supreme Court.

 Concerns arise that the building, which is purportedly 600 to 1,000 years old, might be at risk of damage.

File image: Security forces outside the Gyanvapi mosque complex on May 17, 2022 Photo: PTI

New Delhi:- Meanwhile, the committee responsible for the upkeep of the mosque has approached the Supreme Court, contesting the verdict of the high court. They requested the Supreme Court to adjudicate on their plea before the ASI commenced work at the site.

In response, ASI's additional director general, Alok Tripathi, communicated to the Varanasi District Magistrate and Varanasi Police Commissioner that the agency would be resuming the archaeological survey and scientific investigation from early morning on August 4, in accordance with the high court's orders.

The ASI official urged the Varanasi administration to grant them access to the site and provide adequate security for the survey team during their work and stay.

The district administration has shared a copy of the ASI's letter with all parties involved in the case. Sayid Yasin, the joint secretary of the Anjuman Intejamia Masajid, the caretaker of the masjid, shared a copy of the letter, received from the administration, with The Wire.

‘No regard for the Places of Worship Act’

On August 3, the Chief Justice (CJ) of Allahabad High Court, Pritinker Diwaker, dismissed the petition filed by the Gyanvapi mosque committee, challenging the Varanasi district judge's order from July 21, which called for a survey of the premises by the ASI.


In restoring the district judge's order, CJ Diwaker emphasized that the proposed scientific survey and investigation were necessary for the interests of justice, benefiting both the plaintiffs and defendants and aiding the trial court in reaching a just decision.


Yasin, expressing disappointment over the verdict, stated that losing one Babri Masjid to protect others had not yielded the desired outcome. He lamented the lack of respect for the Places of Worship Act, 1991.


The high court reaffirmed the district judge's order, directing the ASI to undertake scientific investigation, survey, or excavation at the site (settlement plot no. 9130), excluding the areas (the ablution tank) sealed by the Supreme Court last year.


The district court had instructed the ASI to conduct a comprehensive scientific investigation using methods such as GPR Survey, excavation, dating, and other modern techniques to determine whether the existing structure had been built over a pre-existing Hindu temple.


The court had made these directions based on an application filed by four Hindu women seeking year-round access for worship in the Gyanvapi compound.


The high court also expressed confidence in the ASI's assurance that no damage would occur to the property during the archaeological survey.


During the hearings, the high court sought assistance from the ASI on the matter, and ASI's Tripathi submitted an affidavit stating that the survey and studies would be conducted without causing harm to the existing structures.


The ASI would carry out a detailed survey in compliance with the law, documenting and photographing the antiquities found in the building, and determining the age and nature of the structure.


The scientific investigation would take place beyond the structure and in open areas only, avoiding any drilling, cutting, or removal of bricks or stones from the existing structure. The survey and study would be conducted using non-destructive methods such as GPR survey, GPS survey, and other scientific and modern techniques. If any further investigation or excavation is deemed necessary, the ASI would seek permission from the high court.

Concerns about potential damage to the building.

Vishnu Shankar Jain, one of the jubilant lawyers representing the Hindu petitioners, expressed to reporters in Prayagraj that the survey should commence promptly. He emphasized the importance of uncovering the truth, whether it supports their claims or not, for the court's consideration.

However, Farman S. Naqvi, the senior lawyer representing the Gyanvapi Masjid committee, expressed skepticism about the ASI's assurance regarding the preservation of the structure. He voiced concerns about the building's age, claiming it to be 600 years old, while the other side asserts it to be 1,000 years old. Naqvi pointed out that the structure was not constructed using modern materials or technology, and any mishap, like a loose brick falling, could be problematic.

Naqvi further noted that there were no precedents of surveys on old structures to rely on or independent scientific advice on the appropriate methods to use in similar cases. He questioned the guarantee that the structure would remain undamaged during the survey.

Justice Diwaker, however, dismissed the Masjid committee's argument that the scientific investigation might cause damage during any excavation. The court cited the ASI's affidavit, which stated that no excavation would be conducted.