The hearing on the petition of the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee against the cancellation of the objection of the Muslim side on the permission of Shringar Gauri Puja will be held on Tuesday, December 6 as well. In the hearing held on Monday, the temple side argued that the Shivling in Kashi was established by Lord Shiva himself, that is why it is called Swayambhu. It is also described in the Kashi section.
The case is being heard by a single bench of Justice JJ Munir. Temple side’s advocate Harishankar Jain argued on-line on the petition. Said property is vested in the idol of the self-manifested Lord Vishweshwara. The opposition has been worshiping Shringar Gauri since before 1947. He has only demanded the right of worship, which does not violate any legal right of the petitioner. In Islamic law, worship on other’s property is not accepted.
Vishnu Shankar Jain also drew the attention of the court towards the mythological facts and the decisions of the court. Said, there is a detailed description of it in Adhyay 99 and 100 of Skanda Purana, Shlok numbers 61 to 70. He referred to the order given by Justice K Ramaswamy of the Supreme Court. It has been proved in this order that the Vishweshwar Nath temple was damaged during the time of Muhammad Ghori and Mughal ruler Aurangzeb. The court adjourned the hearing of the case till Tuesday.
Expansion
The hearing on the petition of the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee against the cancellation of the objection of the Muslim side on the permission of Shringar Gauri Puja will be held on Tuesday, December 6 as well. In the hearing held on Monday, the temple side argued that the Shivling in Kashi was established by Lord Shiva himself, that is why it is called Swayambhu. It is also described in the Kashi section.
The case is being heard by a single bench of Justice JJ Munir. Temple side’s advocate Harishankar Jain argued on-line on the petition. Said property is vested in the idol of the self-manifested Lord Vishweshwara. The opposition has been worshiping Shringar Gauri since before 1947. He has only demanded the right of worship, which does not violate any legal right of the petitioner. In Islamic law, worship on other’s property is not accepted.
Ritika
