A three-day videotaped investigation into the Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, has concluded a day before the next court hearing of the case. In a statement sure to anger Feather, lawyers representing Hindu women claimed a Shivling was found in a pond inside the mosque complex. “The pond is used for purification rituals,” said lawyer Subhash Nandan Chaturvedi.

The final day of filming began this morning under tight security and restraint near the complex. As of Sunday, about 65 per cent of the survey had been completed. The mosque is near the iconic Kashi Vishwanath Temple, where a local court hears a group of women’s pleas for permission to perform their daily prayers in front of the idols on the outer walls.

Five Hindu women seek year-long prayers at the shrine behind the mosque. The site is currently open for prayer once a year. The women also wanted permission to pray to other “deities, both visible and invisible in the old temple complex.” Part of the investigation began on May 6 but was halted amid controversy over the shooting inside the mosque. The mosque committee said the court did not order cameras to be filmed inside the mosque. However, the petitioner’s lawyer insisted that the court had granted it.

After hearing the matter last week, a local court ordered videotaping wherever the petitioners requested. “We visited all the areas the petitioners wanted. We told the commissioner about it, and he coordinated with the other side. There are clear orders that legal action will be taken against anyone who tries to stop the process, but it will not happen. Action, ‘ said Mr Shukla.

• Govt plans new route connecting Noida airport to NH-34
• India Ranks Third in Global Fintech Funding, Despite 33% Drop in 2024
• India’s Retail Inflation Drops to 5.22% in December, Food Inflation at 8.39%
• Donald Trump Inauguration: Xi Jinping Invited, S Jaishankar to Represent India
• What Is Currency Appreciation: Working & Cause Of Currency Appreciation

Lawyers representing the Gyanvapi Mosque Trust objected to the Supreme Court against the filming order, saying it was inconsistent with the 1991 Places of Worship Act, claiming nothing unusual was found during the investigation. “