These petitioners claim the mosque in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, stands on 13.37 acres of land believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna and are seeking the mosque’s removal.
![[Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Dispute] SC Hear Mosque Committee's Plea on Sept 17](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-38-1.png?resize=800%2C420&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: Today (13th Sept): The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition from the Shahi Idgah Masjid, challenging a recent Allahabad High Court ruling that permitted 15 lawsuits filed by Hindu petitioners.
These petitioners claim the mosque in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, stands on 13.37 acres of land believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna and are seeking the mosque’s removal.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the petition from the mosque’s representatives on Sept 17.
On August 1, Justice Mayank Kumar, in a ruling with potential effects on similar cases, upheld all 15 lawsuits filed by the Hindu petitioners. This decision followed the re-opening of hearings after the Shahi Idgah’s legal team requested an opportunity to be heard and called for video recordings.
The Shahi Idgah Intezamia Committee had contested the validity of the petitions, including one filed by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman at the Katra Keshav Dev temple, which argue that the land is the birthplace of Lord Krishna.
The Hindu petitioners argue that certain lotus carvings and shapes resembling the ‘sheshnag’ (a serpent deity in Hindu mythology) on the mosque serve as evidence that it was constructed over a temple.
The Muslim side had previously sought to dismiss these petitions by referencing the Places of Worship Act of 1991, which preserves the religious status of places as they were on August 15, 1947.
In 1968, an agreement was made between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and the Shahi Masjid Idgah Trust, allocating 10.9 acres of land for Krishna Janmabhoomi and the remaining 2.5 acres for the mosque.
In December of last year, the Supreme Court declined to stay a High Court order for a “scientific survey” of the disputed land, but in January, the Court temporarily halted the order.
This followed the High Court’s appointment of a commissioner to conduct the survey. The Supreme Court, however, criticized the purpose of appointing the commissioner as “vague.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
