Four Hindu women moved the Supreme Court on Monday seeking the excavation and scientific survey of a sealed section of the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi, four days after an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report concluded that a large Hindu temple existed before the construction of the mosque in a boost for the Hindu petitioners in the decades-old case.

The area in question holds a disputed structure that Hindus say is a Shivling, a claim rejected by Muslim side which says it is part of a ritual ablution tank.

Filing two separate applications, the Hindu women plaintiffs pressed that the very purpose of the ASI survey conducted on the orders of the Varanasi district judge will be frustrated if the area, which has remained sealed under the direction of the top court since May 2022, is not inspected by ASI for completeness of the exercise.

“It is relevant to mention that such excavation/scientific prospection is required to find out the original structure of Shivlingam and its associated features,” stated the pleas.

READ | Citing ASI report, VHP asks Muslim side to hand over Gyanvapi structure to Hindus

“We will file an application in the Supreme Court, seeking permission to operate the fountain in the Wazukhana (ritual ablution tank) of Gyanvapi Mosque,” said SM Yasin, joint secretary of the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, which manages Gyanvapi.

“We will not oppose the scientific survey in the hauz (tank) in the Wazukhana.”

While the first application requested the top court to lift the restraint over scientific survey of the structure found in the ablution tank by an order of May 19, 2023, the second sought a specific direction to ASI to undertake the survey of the sealed area and submit a report within the time as may be dictated by the apex court.

“The core question involved in the matter is whether the object found by advocate commissioner on May 16, 2022, is Shivlingam or a fountain, which can be proved only on the basis of a scientific investigation. It is submitted that ASI is the premier authority which can conduct scientific survey of the entire sealed area including Shivlingam to establish the truth in the matter,” stated the pleas filed jointly by Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak.

READ | Explained: Decoding ASI’s Gyanvapi mosque survey report

Since ASI conducted a scientific survey of the entire area under the July 2023 orders of the district judge, the applications argued, the same agency ought to be directed to carry out a survey of the sealed area and the “Shivlingam” to ascertain whether it is a fountain or not.

The application, filed through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, alleged that the spot where the Shivling ostensibly existed was surrounded by raising artificial walls that are modern and unconnected with the original building so as to conceal the original religious character of the structure.

“It is further submitted that the area has no religious significance for Muslims as according to them there is an alleged fountain. It is relevant to mention that the said modern construction has been purposefully done to hide the original features associated with the Shivlingam such as peeth, pithika, etc,” said the applications.

“For proper and effective investigation, it is necessary that ASI may be directed to undertake necessary excavation and use other scientific methods around the shivlingam (being claimed by Muslims as fountain) for determining the nature of Shivlingam and associated features without causing any damage to the object after removing artificial/modern walls/floors surrounding the Shivlingam,” added the pleas.

The applications added that “Shivlingam” is an object of worship for devotees of Lord Shiva and followers of Sanatana dharma in general. “The devotees have every right to perform pooja, aarti, bhog of the deity and such right cannot be denied to them,” it stated.

The Gyanvapi case was last heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud on January 16, when the court asked the Hindu plaintiffs to file a formal application after the latter made a request for a survey of the area that has remained sealed under the order of the top court. On that day, the bench allowed a plea by the Hindu women plaintiffs seeking a directive to the Varanasi district magistrate for cleaning that section of the mosque complex. The mosque management committee did not oppose this plea.

By an order in July last year, the Varanasi district court ordered an extensive survey of the Gyanvapi mosque by ASI to ascertain whether the mosque was built over a pre-existing Hindu temple, holding that the scientific investigation was “necessary” for the “true facts” to come out. The district court order excluded the sealed area.

While the high court upheld this order, the top court, in September, refused to halt the ASI survey of the mosque and added that the agency will carry out its survey only using non-invasive methods. The Supreme Court, on May 19, 2023, also stayed a separate order of the Allahabad high court on scientific survey of the structure.

Last week, the ASI report was made public by the lawyers for the Hindu plaintiffs. The report said that a “large Hindu temple” existed before the construction of the Gyanvapi Masjid, signifying a tipping point in the contentious community conflict that may have far-reaching effects. The same four women had filed the plea – seeking regular rights of worship in the mosque complex – that led to the ASI survey.

“Based on scientific studies/survey carried out, study of architectural remains, exposed features and artefacts, inscriptions, art and sculptures, it can be said that there existed a Hindu temple prior to the construction of the existing structure,” said the report, adding the pre-existing structure appears to have been destroyed in the 17th century, during the reign of Aurangzeb, and part of it was modified and reused in the existing structure.

After the report was made available on January 25, the lawyers for the Hindu side said that they will approach the Supreme Court for a fresh survey of the sealed area of the mosque while the Muslim petitioners said that they would study the document before deciding on their next move. The Muslim side disputed the timelines indicated in the ASI report, and said that its “findings” were not a final verdict.

The Supreme Court is seized of a bundle of petitions filed by the mosque management committee, challenging the spot inspection and order of scientific survey of the mosque complex, as well as order upholding the maintainability of the suits.

The mosque management committee banks on the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 — Section 3 imposes a prohibition on individuals and groups of people against converting, in full or part, of a place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination, or even a different segment of the same religious denomination. But the law has not prevented a spree of litigations in recent months, which include several suits regarding the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura.

Meanwhile, a batch of petitions – some seeking to scrap the 1991 Act and some others asking for tight enforcement of that law — have remained pending before the top court since March 2021.