In a recent development concerning the controversial Gyanvapi issue, the Supreme Court of India put a temporary hold on the Archaeological Survey of India's (ASI) in-depth scientific investigation at the mosque site. This stay order is in effect until 5 pm on the coming Wednesday. The decision was taken with the aim of offering the mosque committee some time to breathe and appeal against the order. The bench delivering this ruling included Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

This came as a breather for the Gyanvapi committee, given that the Supreme Court decided to halt the meticulous scientific probe initiated by the ASI. This investigation was launched to establish whether the mosque, situated adjacent to the renowned Kashi Vishwanath temple in the holy city of Varanasi, was erected over the remains of a Hindu temple. The apex court emphasized the necessity for "some breathing time" to be allotted for the mosque committee to challenge the order.

An urgent plea for hearing was submitted by Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (AIM), the administrative body of the Gyanvapi mosque. The Supreme Court, in response, directed the Allahabad High Court to address this appeal prior to the expiry of its "status quo" order on Wednesday evening.

This decision by the apex court arrived amidst a scenario where a group of 30 ASI team members were on site within the mosque compound to carry out the investigation. The Varanasi court had previously mandated the ASI to execute the probe, including necessary excavations, to determine if the mosque was constructed where a Hindu temple once stood.

The bench, chaired by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, paid heed to the submissions made by senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi. Ahmadi, representing the mosque committee in court, persuaded the bench to stay the order's operation until Wednesday evening and advised the committee to submit an appeal in the intervening time.

The bench, echoing its earlier sentiment, stated, "We are of the view that some breathing time should be granted to the mosque committee."

They further added, "We permit the petitioners to move the high court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution or the appropriate proceedings to challenge the order of the learned district judge of Varanasi." The bench felt that considering the district court's order was pronounced at 4.30 pm on July 21 and the survey was still in progress, it was justifiable to allow some breathing room to the petitioners to approach the high court, seeking appropriate reliefs.

The bench then proceeded to order that the contentious district judge's order wouldn't be implemented until 5 pm on July 26. In the interim, if the petitioners approached the high court with a petition or application under Article 227, the registrar-judicial was directed to ensure it was placed before an appropriate bench, according to the roster of work, so that it could be heard before the "status quo" order, granted by the apex court, comes to an end.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, was then asked by the bench to relay the order promptly to the ASI officials working at the site.

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the mosque committee, called for an immediate stay of the ASI work at the start of the day's proceedings. He claimed that the task was initiated in a "tearing hurry," not providing sufficient time for the aggrieved party to file an appeal. Following this appeal, the bench, which initially suggested that the mosque panel should move the high court, decided to take up the plea for hearing during the day and sought information from the solicitor general about the status of work being carried out by the ASI.

It was then clarified by the bench that no invasive or excavation work should be carried out at the site. In response, the law officer received instructions and informed the bench that the ASI was currently conducting photography and radar-imaging at the site and no invasive or excavation work was underway at the moment.

It was also mentioned that the mosque's "wazookhana" (a small reservoir for Muslim devotees to perform ritual ablutions before offering namaz), which contains a structure claimed by Hindu litigants to be a "Shivling," would not be included in the survey. This was in compliance with a prior Supreme Court order that sought to protect that specific spot within the complex.

Further, District Judge A K Vishvesh directed the ASI to submit a comprehensive report to the court by August 4, which would include video clips and photographs documenting the survey proceedings.

Huzefa Ahmadi brought to the court's attention that an order had been passed, instructing a complete ASI survey of the area. According to him, this order was in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court's earlier order.

On being asked by the bench why the committee didn't withdraw this and approach the Allahabad High Court, Ahmadi explained that the ASI had already commenced the survey, overlooking the mosque panel's request to pause the work temporarily as the apex court was reviewing the matter. He referenced the district court's order and highlighted that they would excavate the site as the ASI had been instructed to conduct a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey and other scientific assessments.

The solicitor general then informed that the survey was a non-invasive method and added that during the last hearing, there was a discussion around the carbon-dating of the "Shivling," which would have been an invasive method.

The court then suggested that they could pass an order to halt excavation work at the site for a week, during which time the mosque committee could approach the high court.

In a previous order, the Supreme Court had directed the protection of the area surrounding the "Shivling" discovered when another court had ordered a video survey of the Gyanvapi mosque complex. The mosque management, however, insists that the structure is part of the water fountain mechanism at the "wazookhana."