Express News Service
LUCKNOW: Continuing with the argument to counter the Muslim side’s submissions challenging the maintainability of Shringar Gauri-Gyanvapi mosque case for the second consecutive day on Wednesday, veteran Supreme Court lawyer Harishankar Jain claimed in the court of Varanasi district judge that the plaintiffs were seeking neither the possession of so-called mosque’s property nor the rights to worship on its premises.
“We are demanding the rights for worshipping at those points on the Gyanvapi premises where deities were worshipped till 1993”, said Jain while representing the four women petitioners in the case.
The hearing in the case will continue on Thursday also when advocates of women plaintiffs will continue their argument, said district government counsel (civil) Mahendra Prasad Pandey.
After the lawyers of Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, the Gyanvapi mosque management committee, had completed their argument and submissions to challenge the maintainability of the petition filed by five women seeking worshipping rights at Shringar Gauri and other deities on Gyanvapi mosque premises, the counter-argument by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain commenced on Tuesday.
Detailed counter-argument by veteran lawyer Harishankar Jain at 2 pm on Wednesday and continued for 2.15 hours or the restoration of their personal rights and that the hearing in the case would continue on Thursday.
During his submissions, Jain said that he had duly informed the court that the women plaintiffs had filed the petition for their own rights and not the whole society. “Hence there was no need to file representative suit,” said Jain.
Against the claim of AIM that this suit should be filed in High Court, Vishnu Shankar Jain said that by referring an order of three-judge bench of the Supreme Court issued in 1995, it was informed to the court that for the enforcement of article 25 (freedom of practicing religion), one could approach civil court.
Harishankar Jain said that regarding area of Kashi Vishwanath temple, reference of Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act 1983 was given to the court as it contained the name Aadi Visheshwar and referred to as Jyotirlinga. As per this Act, entire property of Aadi Visheshwar was vested in the name temple, he added.
LUCKNOW: Continuing with the argument to counter the Muslim side’s submissions challenging the maintainability of Shringar Gauri-Gyanvapi mosque case for the second consecutive day on Wednesday, veteran Supreme Court lawyer Harishankar Jain claimed in the court of Varanasi district judge that the plaintiffs were seeking neither the possession of so-called mosque’s property nor the rights to worship on its premises.
“We are demanding the rights for worshipping at those points on the Gyanvapi premises where deities were worshipped till 1993”, said Jain while representing the four women petitioners in the case.
The hearing in the case will continue on Thursday also when advocates of women plaintiffs will continue their argument, said district government counsel (civil) Mahendra Prasad Pandey.
After the lawyers of Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, the Gyanvapi mosque management committee, had completed their argument and submissions to challenge the maintainability of the petition filed by five women seeking worshipping rights at Shringar Gauri and other deities on Gyanvapi mosque premises, the counter-argument by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain commenced on Tuesday.
Detailed counter-argument by veteran lawyer Harishankar Jain at 2 pm on Wednesday and continued for 2.15 hours or the restoration of their personal rights and that the hearing in the case would continue on Thursday.
During his submissions, Jain said that he had duly informed the court that the women plaintiffs had filed the petition for their own rights and not the whole society. “Hence there was no need to file representative suit,” said Jain.
Against the claim of AIM that this suit should be filed in High Court, Vishnu Shankar Jain said that by referring an order of three-judge bench of the Supreme Court issued in 1995, it was informed to the court that for the enforcement of article 25 (freedom of practicing religion), one could approach civil court.
Harishankar Jain said that regarding area of Kashi Vishwanath temple, reference of Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act 1983 was given to the court as it contained the name Aadi Visheshwar and referred to as Jyotirlinga. As per this Act, entire property of Aadi Visheshwar was vested in the name temple, he added.
