The temple always remains a temple unless it is transferred elsewhere or the Idol is immersed

An intervention petition has been filed in the Supreme Court by the Senior lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay

A Senior lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay

New Delhi – A Senior lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay has filed an intervention petition in the Gyanvapi Mosque case in the Supreme Court. The petition states that after the consecration of an Idol, the temple always remains a temple unless it is transferred elsewhere or the Idol is immersed according to the Dharma rituals.

काशी-मथुरा पाने की लड़ाई यह भी: SC में लड़ रहे अश्विनी उपाध्याय, कहा- वर्शिप एक्ट जैसा कानून बनाने का केंद्र को अधिकार ही नहीं#PlacesofWorshipAct को सुप्रीम कोर्ट में दी गई चुनौती पर @RanaSudhirG https://t.co/DCph2MSSOj

— ऑपइंडिया (@OpIndia_in) May 20, 2022

In the petition, Ashwini Upadhyay has said,

• The religious nature of a temple and a mosque are completely different, so the same law cannot be applied to both. According to Islam, a mosque built on temple land cannot be a mosque.
• Once vested in the Deity, the property remains the property and rights of the Deity. The Deities and devotees never perish, no matter how long such property is in illegal possession. The temple’s basic nature does not change with the demolition of its roof or its walls.
• Article 13 of the Constitution gives Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs the right to propagate their religion and to protect places of worship. This section also prohibits the enactment of any new law depriving them of this right. A mosque built by violating Islamic law cannot be considered a mosque.