Lucknow: Varanasi district court will deliver an important verdict in the dispute related to Gyanvapi Masjid on Monday. Five Hindu women had demanded the right to worship Hindu deities in the mosque premises, which is likely to be decided today.
The case being communally sensitive, District Judge AK Vishvesh, last month, reserved order till September 12. Ahead of the verdict, prohibitory orders under section 144 have been imposed in Varanasi to avoid any violent situation and to maintain law and order in the city.
Varanasi Police Commissioner Satish Ganesh said that tight security arrangements have been made on Monday. Police and paramilitary forces would also be deployed in and around areas with mixed populations, he said.
The commissioner also informed that patrolling vehicles would be deployed at critical points, the official said, adding that quick response teams have been formed to take action in case of any tension.
Appealing to the people not to be misled by rumours, Ganesh said that any attempt to disturb the law and order situation will be dealt strictly.
What is Gyanvapi Masjid controversy?
The petition was filed by five Hindu women seeking permission for daily worship of Hindu deities, whose idols are located on the outer wall of the Gyanvapi mosque, in the mosque premises.
The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee has said that the Gyanvapi Masjid is a Waqf property and has questioned the hearing of the petition.
Madan Mohan Yadav, the counsel for the Hindu side, had said that the mosque was constructed by demolishing the temple. The district court is hearing the matter after the order of the top court.
Earlier, a trial court had ordered a videography survey of the premises. The survey work was completed on 16 May and the report was presented in the court on 19 May.
The Hindu side had claimed in the trial court that a Shivling was found during a videography survey of the Gyanvapi Masjid-Shringar Gauri complex, but the Muslim side opposed it.
The Muslim side has questioned the maintainability of the petition and sought time to file its reply on Monday. The court allowed it and fixed September 13 for the next hearing of the matter.
The district judge started the hearing on May 20 after the Supreme Court directed the hearing of the 693/2021 case on priority basis.
