Harihar Pandey, a resident of Varanasi and one of the three original litigants in a civil suit filed in 1991, which aimed at the removal of the Gyanvapi mosque from the land associated with the 'Adi Vishweshwar temple,' has passed away. The demise of the 77-year-old Pandey occurred on Sunday, during his treatment at BHU Hospital. His significant role as a petitioner in the 1991 suit (610/1991) was centered around seeking the elimination of the Gyanvapi mosque from the "Adi Vishweshwar temple" premises and the reinstatement of the Gyanvapi land situated adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath temple.
Harihar Pandey, hailing from Varanasi, succumbed to an ailment that had plagued him for an extended period. Notably, Pandey played a pivotal role as one of the instigators of the Kashi Gyanvapi Mukti Andolan.
The origins of the Gyanvapi mosque case trace back to October 1991, when a petition was formally submitted to the Varanasi civil judge on behalf of Swayambhu Jyotirlinga Bhagwan Vishweshwar (Lord Shiva) and three others, with Harihar Pandey being among the plaintiffs. His co-plaintiffs, Pandit Somanath Vyas and Ramrang Sharma, who had initially filed the primary petition related to the Gyanvapi case involving the deity Lord Visheshwar, have already passed away.
The assertions made in the Gyanvapi mosque case date back to the initial petition filed in 1991, where the suit not only sought the right to worship within the Gyanvapi complex but also advocated for the removal of the mosque from the said area.
Presently, the civil suit remains pending before a district court, contending that a temple existed on the site over 2,000 years ago before the mosque was erected. Meanwhile, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is anticipated to submit a report to the Varanasi district court concerning the ongoing scientific survey of the Gyanvapi mosque. The court had granted the ASI a 10-day window on November 30 to present its findings.
Commencing on August 4, the ASI's survey focused on the barricaded section of the Gyanvapi premises, excluding its sealed portion, following court directives to ascertain whether the 17th-century mosque was constructed atop a pre-existing structure of a Hindu temple. The survey was initiated after the Allahabad High Court upheld the Varanasi district court order, deeming the step "necessary in the interest of justice" for the benefit of both Hindu and Muslim parties embroiled in the dispute. Meanwhile, the objections raised by the Muslim side, represented by lawyer Mohammad Ikhlaq, center around the ASI's request for additional time, emphasizing the need for a definitive conclusion to the protracted process of filing reports.
