The Supreme Court will hear the plea by Shahi Masjid Idgah’s management on January 15, challenging the Allahabad High Court’s rejection of its petition in the Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute. The case focuses on the “religious character” of the disputed site, with Hindu parties seeking mosque removal, citing violations of the Places of Worship Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India is set to hear a plea on January 15 from the mosque management committee regarding a previous order rejecting its petition in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.
Earlier, on August 1 of the previous year, a single-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition by the Committee of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah. This petition challenged the admissibility of 15 cases related to the ongoing temple-mosque dispute. The court had stated that the “religious character” of Shahi Idgah must be determined.
A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar began the final hearing on December 9 last year. As per the Supreme Court website, the matter is scheduled for further hearing on January 15.
Advocate Barun Sinha, representing one of the Hindu parties, argued that the mosque committee should have approached the Allahabad High Court instead of the Supreme Court. He stated,
“In view of Chapter 8 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, a special appeal before the division bench of the high court would be maintainable.”
He added that-
“Supreme Court plea was not maintainable against the order of a single judge bench of the high court”
and suggested filing an intra-court appeal. Consequently, he urged the court to dismiss the plea.
On November 29 last year, the Chief Justice-led bench agreed to take up the plea. The Chief Justice remarked,
“This we will hear at length. We will take it up on December 9, at 2 pm… We have to decide what is the legal position.”
He also noted that an intra-court appeal might be the appropriate recourse against the high court’s single-judge bench ruling on August 1, saying,
“We will certainly give you an opportunity to argue.”
The mosque management committee argued that the cases filed by Hindu litigants over the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple and the adjoining mosque violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and were therefore not valid.
This law prohibits altering the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. However, the Act explicitly excluded the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute from its purview.
The Hindu parties in the case have sought the “removal” of the mosque, built during Aurangzeb’s reign, claiming it was constructed after demolishing a temple that originally stood there.
The Allahabad High Court noted that the 1991 Act did not define the term “religious character” and stated that a place could not simultaneously hold dual religious identities. The court remarked, “Either the place is a temple or a mosque. Thus, I find that the religious character of the disputed place as it existed on August 15, 1947, is to be determined by documentary as well as oral evidence led by both the parties.”
The court also concluded that the cases were-
“not barred by any provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Limitation Act, 1963, and Order XIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.”
Hindu side’s advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain stated that his client intended to approach the Supreme Court to lift its stay on a prior Allahabad High Court order permitting a survey of the mosque.
Meanwhile, the mosque management committee and the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board maintained that the suits violated the Places of Worship Act and other relevant laws.
On May 31, 2024, the Allahabad High Court reserved its decision on the maintainability plea after hearing arguments from both sides. However, it reopened the hearing following a request from Shahi Idgah’s counsel, Mehmood Pracha.
This ongoing Mathura dispute has drawn parallels to the legal conflict in Varanasi, where the Gyanvapi mosque and the Kashi Vishwanath temple stand next to one another.
BACKGROUND
The Muslim side approached the Supreme Court against an Allahabad High Court ruling that dismissed their challenge to the maintainability of 18 cases linked to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura.
The petition contesting the High Court’s August 1 order has been submitted to the Supreme Court by the mosque management committee, represented by advocate RHA Sikander.
Advocate Sikander stated that the plea is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court next week.
Read Also: Krishna Janmasthan-Shahi Idgah Dispute | HC Reserves Judgment on Maintainability of Cases
The Allahabad High Court, in its August 1 ruling, rejected the Muslim side’s plea challenging the maintainability of 18 cases concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura. The court emphasized that the “religious character” of the Shahi Idgah must be determined.
The High Court also dismissed the argument that the suits filed by Hindu parties, related to the dispute over the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple and the adjacent mosque, violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, and were therefore non-maintainable.
The matter followed a 1968 agreement between the Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and the mosque’s management, which settled the land dispute between them. Advocate Ahmadi mentioned that it’s too late for this agreement now, and even in the worst-case scenario where the mosque was built after 1968, time limits would prevent the lawsuit from proceeding.
The lawsuit also revisits historical claims that the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb destroyed a temple to build the mosque in 1669. Ahmadi argues that this point itself proves the mosque’s existence beyond that date, limiting legal action due to time constraints.
Read Also: Hindu Side vs. Allahabad HC: The Impact of Waqf Board on Shahi Idgah Dispute
Furthermore, the legal challenge includes debates over the Places of Worship Act, with some plaintiffs arguing against its constitutionality. However, Ahmadi maintains that constitutional issues cannot be introduced in private legal disputes and that only those who possess property can seek legal protection for it.
The legal battle over the land occupied by the Krishna Janmasthan Temple and the Shahi Idgah Mosque continues as the High Court recently reserved its judgment concerning the maintainability of the lawsuits filed in this dispute. The court’s upcoming decision will set the stage for the next phase of legal proceedings, potentially influencing future negotiations and resolutions between the conflicting parties.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Dispute
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
