This story is from October 12, 2022

Varanasi: Verdict on carbon dating of 'shivling' in Gyanvapi case on Friday

The Varanasi district judge court on Tuesday fixed October 14 as the date to deliver its order on the demand of four women plaintiffs, seeking court intervention for carbon dating of the purported 'shivling' claimed to have been found in the ablution pond of the mosque during court commission survey on May 16.
Varanasi: Verdict on carbon dating of 'shivling' in Gyanvapi case on Friday
During the court hearing on Tuesday, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid - the Gyanvapi mosque management committee - strongly opposed the demand of carbon dating and scientific investigation of the 'shivling'
VARANASI: The Varanasi district judge court on Tuesday fixed October 14 as the date to deliver its order on the demand of four women plaintiffs, seeking court intervention for carbon dating of the purported 'shivling' claimed to have been found in the ablution pond of the mosque during court commission survey on May 16.
During the court hearing on Tuesday, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid - the Gyanvapi mosque management committee - strongly opposed the demand of carbon dating and scientific investigation of the 'shivling'.
1x1 polls

The AIM lawyers stated in the court that as "the Supreme Court's order of May 17 to protect it is prevalent, such structure can't be disturbed".
Countering the AIM contention, Vishnu Jain, the lawyer of plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the case said: "The SC had empowered the Varanasi district judge through its May 20 order to dispose all applications related to the case." "With the end of arguments of all sides on carbon dating and scientific investigation of the 'shivling' and its constituents, district judge Ajay Krishna Vishvesha reserved his order for October 14," district government counsel (civil) Mahendra Prasad Pandey told TOI.
AIM lawyer Akhlaq Ahmed said, "We filed our objection against the demand of carbon dating and scientific investigation of the structure being claimed as 'shivling' before the court on Tuesday, mentioning that the structure would have to be disturbed for any of these investigations. In its May 17 order, the SC had asked to protect the structure. When the SC's order is prevailing, how could the demand of this nature prevail above it?"
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA