The PIL had sought directives to the Uttar Pradesh government and the Varanasi administration to “seal the entire Gyanvapi mosque” without affecting an ASI survey now underway at the disputed site.
Petitioners Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh chief Jitendra Singh Visen and Rakhi Singh – plaintiff no. 1 in the Shringar Gauri suit – had claimed that Adi Vishweshwar Virajmaan (Lord Shiva) was located in the premises of the mosque, and it was in fact an old temple complex.
The petitioners sought the curbs on non-Hindus till the disposal of the suits pending in the Varanasi district judge‘s court.
An HC division bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava asked the petitioners how “it could prohibit the entry of non-Hindus” and how they could be certain that “only non-Hindus would damage Hindu signs and symbols”.The bench also said the “relief sought in the PIL could very well be claimed in the suit pending before the Varanasi court itself”.
When the petitioners’ counsel, Saurabh Tiwari, claimed the structure was being damaged at the disputed site, the HC wondered how that was possible during the ASI survey “when everything was being recorded and photos taken of any artefact found”.
