In a recent hearing before the Allahabad High Court, the Gyanvapi Mosque case took an intriguing turn as the Muslim side raised questions about the State of Uttar Pradesh's connection to the Hindu parties involved.

The case revolves around conflicting claims over the religious character of the Gyanvapi compound, and tensions escalated during the hearing.

Senior Advocate SFA Naqvi questioned the presence of the State's Advocate General in the courtroom, emphasizing that the government was yet to be impleaded as a party in the matter.

he court clarified that the Advocate General was only assisting and suggested the State be impleaded.

The court sought the State's stand, asking if they had prevented the Hindu side in 1993 when the alleged disruption of Hindu prayers occurred.

The court expressed doubts about the relevance of a 1942 judgment in Din Mohammad v. Secretary of State, indicating it may not favor either party.

The judgment had addressed the right to offer namaz but made passing comments on both parties.

The court highlighted that the crux of the matter would be determining who was in possession of the disputed site when barricades were set up near the mosque in 1993.

Advocate Hari Shankar Jain argued against impleading the State as a necessary party and reiterated that Hindu prayers had been offered in the disputed tekhana.

Senior Advocate Naqvi contested the correctness of the January 31 order, arguing that it was passed without a fresh application.

He questioned whether the court could allow possession through an indirect route.

The court scheduled the next hearing for February 12. The case continues to unfold, with the central focus on establishing possession in 1993 and addressing legal intricacies.

As the Gyanvapi Mosque case progresses, the nuanced arguments and doubts raised during this hearing add complexity to an already contentious legal battle.