The Varanasi District court on Wednesday allowed the Hindu side to offer prayers in the Vyas family's basement in the disputed Gyanavapi mosque. Somnath Vyas's family still has possession of one basement at Gyanvapi. 


The Hindu side had pleaded the district court to allow them to worship on the Vyas basement. The Vyas family used to offer prayers in the basement till 1993. It was stopped after the then state government passed the orders to stop the family from offering prayers. The rituals of prayers will be carried out under the supervision of the Kashi Vishwanath temple trust, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain told ABP Live


The basement has many Hindu deity idols. The Vyas family now does not live in Kashi Vishwanath complex but still have possession of one of the four basements of Gyanvapi complex.


ALSO READ | Gyanvapi ASI Survey Report: 7 Findings On Sculptures Of Hindu Gods, Aurangzeb's Order And More


Last week, the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) in its report has submitted that it can be said that there existed a large Hindu Temple prior to the construction of the Gyanvapi mosque. 


The ASI in its brief findings has said that it has concluded that there existed a temple before the mosque based on the scientific studies and observations of central chamber and main entrance of the pre-existing structure and the existing structure, western chamber and western hall; reuse of pillars and plaster of pre-existing structure in existing structure; Arabic and persian inscription on the loose stone, sculptural remains in cellars, etc. 


The Varanasi district court, in July 2023 ordered the ASI to conduct the scientific survey of the Gyanvyapi mosque premises after the petitioners claimed that the 17th-century mosque was constructed over a pre-existing temple.


ALSO READ |  Why Madras HC Asked Tamil Nadu Govt To Put Up Boards In Temples Saying 'Non-Hindus Not Allowed'?

The ASI was also directed by the Allahabad HC to submit the report on the scientific investigation.


The ASI survey was ordered by the district court after the petitioners claimed that the 17th-century mosque was constructed over a pre-existing temple.


--With inputs from Vereesh Pandey