In this case, two separate applications have been given in the court on behalf of the plaintiff and the respondent. On behalf of the plaintiff, a demand has been made to give a clear order for inspection of the basement including the basement inside the barricading. Alleging that the Advocate Commissioner was not impartial, on behalf of the respondent Anjuman Inazaniya Masajid, a demand has been made to the court to replace him.

During the hearing, the demand for videography and survey by breaking the lock and going inside the Gyanvapi Mosque was protested by Anjuman Prabandiya on Wednesday. Advocate Abhaynath Yadav said that in the year 1936 in Deen Mohammad v. Secretary of State it has been declared that the mosque, courtyard and the land below it belong to the Waqf Board.

Here the people of the Muslim community are entitled to perform Namaz, Prayers, Urs etc. according to religion, which has been happening since time immemorial without any hindrance. In such a situation, the application for conducting a survey by breaking the lock inside the Gyanvapi basement deserves to be rejected. The matter of survey was said only after the boundary of the Araji number, the area was clear.

The post Judgment reserved in Gyanvapi-Shringar Gauri case, verdict to 12th May appeared first on The Daily Voice.