ASI team enters Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi to carry out scientific survey
Varanasi (UP) (PTI): A 30-member team of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) entered the Gyanvapi complex on Monday morning to carry out a scientific survey in accordance with court orders to determine if the mosque located next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple was built upon a temple.
Besides the ASI team, which entered the complex around 7 am, the lawyers of all the Hindu petitioners to the legal dispute are also present at the spot, Madan Mohan Yadav, one of the counsel, said.
Late on Sunday evening, District Magistrate (DM) S Rajalingam had said the ASI team had reached Varanasi and the survey proceedings inside the Gyanvapi mosque campus would begin from 7 am on Monday.
Varanasi Police Commissioner Ashok Mutha Jain and the DM held a meeting with both the Hindu and Muslim sides to the dispute on Sunday night to share information about the survey with them.
However, citing the Supreme Court hearing scheduled for Monday on the order for the survey, the lawyers of the Muslim side demanded that the date for the exercise be postponed, Yadav said.
He added that the Muslim side has boycotted he survey.
District Judge A K Vishvesh directed the ASI on Friday to conduct a detailed scientific survey -- including excavations, wherever necessary -- to determine if the mosque in Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh was built at a place where a temple existed earlier.
The mosque's "wazookhana" (a small reservoir for Muslim devotees to perform ritual ablutions), where a structure claimed by the Hindu litigants to be a "Shivling" exists, will not be part of the survey, following an earlier Supreme Court order protecting that spot in the complex.
The judge has directed the ASI to submit a report to the court by August 4, along with video clips and photographs of the survey proceedings.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Unemployed 'youngsters like cockroaches' become media, activists; attack system: CJI
New Delhi (PTI): Likening some unemployed youngsters to cockroaches, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Friday said they go on to "become" media, social media and RTI activists and start attacking the system.
The comments came while a bench of CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was pulling up a lawyer for "pursuing" a senior advocate designation. It said there were already "parasites" in society who attack the system and asked the petitioner whether he wanted to join hands with them.
"The entire world may be eligible to become senior (advocate), but at least you are not entitled," the bench told the petitioner lawyer.
A visibly anguished CJI observed that if the Delhi High Court would confer senior advocate designation upon the petitioner, the apex court would set that aside seeing his professional conduct.
The CJI also referred to the kind of language used by the petitioner on Facebook.
"There are already parasites of society who attack the system and you want to join hands with them?" he said.
"There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don't get any employment or have any place in profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, RTI activists and other activists and they start attacking everyone," he said.
The bench also asked the petitioner whether he did not have any other litigation.
"Is this the conduct of a person who seeks to be designated as a senior advocate?" the bench asked.
It said senior advocate designation is something that is conferred on a person and is not to be pursued.
"You are pursuing it. Does it look proper?" the top court said, asking whether a senior advocate designation was a status symbol to be kept ornamentally.
It also observed that it wanted to ask the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to verify the degrees of many of those who were wearing black robes as there were serious doubts over the genuineness of their degrees.
It said the Bar Council of India would never do anything on this issue as they "need their votes".
The petitioner apologised to the bench and sought permission to withdraw the petition. The bench allowed the withdrawal of the petition.
