Introduction:

A groundbreaking revelation surfaces as the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) unveils a report asserting the existence of a significant Hindu temple predating the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi. The report contends that parts of the pre-existing temple, including pillars and inscriptions, were repurposed in the construction of the current structure. This revelation sparks a legal discourse surrounding the historical and religious implications, challenging the established narrative.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The ASI report, based on a scientific survey ordered by the Varanasi District Judge, claims to have discovered 34 inscriptions, predominantly on stones from the pre-existing Hindu temple. It asserts that these stones were subsequently integrated into the construction of the Gyanvapi Mosque. On the other side, the plaintiffs in the Shringar Gauri Worship suit, represented by Advocate Saurabh Tiwari, affirm the authenticity of the ASI’s findings. The legal landscape unfolds with implications for the historical context and religious sentiments surrounding the contested site.

Court’s Judgment:

The legal journey began with the Supreme Court’s refusal on August 4, 2023, to halt the ASI survey, except for the ‘wuzukhana’ area, where a ‘shivling’ was claimed to have been found. The Varanasi District Judge’s order for a “scientific survey” was affirmed by the Allahabad High Court, emphasizing the need to investigate if the mosque was constructed over a pre-existing Hindu temple. The ASI’s findings, pointing to a temple beneath the mosque, raise questions about the historical narrative and the potential impact on existing legal disputes over religious sites.