Gyanvapi case: May 16 order unlawful and one-sided, says AIM

VARANASI: Filing objections against the pleas for alternative arrangement of wuzu, toilet and shifting fishes after sealing of the wuzu pond in the

Gyanvapi

premises as well as demand for breaking some walls of the mosque for further survey, the lawyers of

Anjuman Intejamia Masajid

(

AIM

), one of the parties in the Shringar Gauri worship case, have termed the May 16 order of the court for sealing of the wazu pond as “unlawful and one-sided”.

In the objection filed against the plea of the plaintiffs for razing the walls of the

eastern

side and the basement under possession of the

Vyas

family in front of the Nandi statue for further survey, the AIM lawyers said that the demand was baseless as it was raised even before the court commission survey report was submitted in the court.

They said that the order issued by court on May 16 (for sealing wuzu pond area) on the application of advocate

Vishnu Jain

was unlawful and one-sided as the application was incomplete and no affidavit was attached with it. They also mentioned that the Supreme Court had taken note of the matter on May 16 and allowed offering of namaz without restriction.

The AIM lawyers also questioned the claim of finding shivling in the wuzu pond by the plaintiffs without waiting for the findings of the court commission. “By making such a claim, the plaintiffs are trying to disturb peace and communal harmony,” they said, adding, “If the walls would be broken on the demand of the plaintiffs, threat can be caused to the entire mosque building which is several hundred years old.”

They also referred to many cases related to the Gyanvapi issue pending in different courts and demanded rejection of the plea of the plaintiffs.

Regarding the plea of DGC (civil), the AIM lawyers said that wazu is a part of namaz and the SC has taken note of sealing the wazu pond. Hence, this matter is sub-judice. They also opposed the demand of shifting the toilet and fishes from the wazu pond.

The women plaintiffs also submitted their objection against removal of the pipeline and taps from the wazu pond area by claiming that it would harm the evidence.