In the Instant matter Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain is leading the Hindu petitioners, who claim that the Muslim petitioners are demeaning the Shivling as a fountain since Hindus believe that the Shivlingam is a symbol of religion and worship for all Hindus. The Hindu parties propose a scientific investigation of the Shivlingam, which will include a spot inspection, expert opinion gathering, a 10 grammes binder sample, ground penetrating radar technique, digging, dating objects of archaeological importance, and methods to ascertain whether the religious object is projecting from the in-situ rock. According to the affidavit, the report provided by the ASI and expert views indicates the type and age of the object, making the High Court judgement legal and reasonable. By designating competent individuals to carry out the necessary scientific research by Order 26 regulation 10-A CPC, the court can get an expert opinion. The order is seen as entirely legitimate and justified since it seeks to ascertain whether a religious construction exists within the in-situ rock.
Conclusion of the Supreme Court
To resolve the controversy, Hindu groups have complained to the Supreme Court that calling the Shivling discovered within the contentious Gyanvapi mosque a fountain is demeaning and requires a scientific investigation. The Supreme Court instructed the Allahabad High Court to postpone its instructions for the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a scientific study of the contested artefact. The court asked the Central and Uttar Pradesh governments for their answers to the Muslim party’s plea. The case will be heard tomorrow by the CJI DY Chandrachud-led bench.