The Supreme Court will hear the mosque committee’s plea regarding the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute on March 2025, after previously deferring it. The Allahabad High Court ruled the site’s religious character needs evidence, affecting the legal context of the 1991 Places of Worship Act. The case’s outcome may influence similar disputes.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Jan 15) deferred the hearing of a plea by the mosque management committee in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar rescheduled the hearing for March 2025, citing the need to address another pressing matter involving teacher appointments in West Bengal.
“We are in another case today. List the plea in March, 2025,”
remarked the CJI during the session.
The mosque management committee, Committee of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah, is contesting an August 1, 2023, order by a single judge of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had dismissed the committee’s challenge to the maintainability of 15 lawsuits related to the dispute and ruled that the “religious character” of the Shahi Idgah mosque needed to be determined.
The Supreme Court had commenced its final hearing on the case on December 9, 2024, but progress has been delayed due to scheduling conflicts.
The Hindu side, represented by Advocate Barun Sinha, argued that the mosque committee should have pursued an intra-court appeal in the Allahabad High Court instead of approaching the Supreme Court.
“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,”
Sinha argued, adding that the Supreme Court plea was premature and should be dismissed.
The mosque committee countered that the lawsuits filed by Hindu litigants violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibits altering the religious character of a place as it existed on August 15, 1947. They maintained that the cases were, therefore, not legally valid.
Hindu litigants are seeking the removal of the Aurangzeb-era mosque, alleging it was constructed after demolishing a temple that originally stood on the site. The mosque committee and the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board argue that these claims are barred under the Places of Worship Act and other legal provisions.
The Allahabad High Court, however, stated that the 1991 Act does not define “religious character” and concluded that the site’s nature—whether temple or mosque—needs to be determined based on evidence.
The High Court found that the disputed site could not simultaneously have a dual religious character: “Either the place is a temple or a mosque,” it noted, emphasizing that both documentary and oral evidence from both parties would be required to resolve the issue.
Additionally, the High Court ruled that the cases were not barred by the Wakf Act, 1995, the Specific Relief Act, 1963, or other legal statutes, further allowing the litigation to proceed.
The Mathura dispute has drawn comparisons to the Gyanvapi mosque-Kashi Vishwanath temple case in Varanasi, where a similar conflict over religious sites has reached the courts.
The Supreme Court’s decision to defer the hearing reflects the complexity and sensitivity of the issue. As the legal battle continues, all eyes are on the March 2025 hearing, which is expected to address crucial questions about the religious character of the site and the applicability of the Places of Worship Act.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE