Today, On 6th August, Hindu litigants filed a caveat in the Supreme Court regarding the Mathura temple-mosque dispute. The caveat is a precautionary measure to ensure they are heard before any decision is made in the case. This dispute centers around the ownership and rights over a historical religious site in Mathura.
New Delhi: Hindu litigants filed a caveat in the Supreme Court to ensure their participation in any hearing if the Muslim side challenges a recent Allahabad High Court decision. This decision dismissed a plea questioning the maintainability of 18 cases concerning the temple-mosque dispute in Mathura.
The caveat, submitted by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, aims to prevent any ex-parte order being issued against the Hindu litigants should the opposing party approach the Supreme Court.
Read Also: Supreme Court Seeks Formal Application in Gyanvapi Mosque Case
A caveat application is a precautionary measure taken by a litigant to ensure that no court order is passed without their knowledge and opportunity to present their case.
On August 1, the Allahabad High Court rejected a plea from the Muslim side that challenged the validity of 18 ongoing cases related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura. The court ruled that the religious character of the mosque in question needed to be ascertained, dismissing the argument that the suits filed by the Hindu litigants violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991. This Act generally prohibits altering the religious character of any place of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947, except for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.
The Hindu litigants seeking the removal of the mosque, which they claim was built during Aurangzeb’s reign after demolishing a pre-existing temple. They argue that the mosque contains architectural and historical elements indicating its origins as a temple.
The mosque management committee and the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board contended that the suits were invalid under the Places of Worship Act and other legal provisions. The Allahabad High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, reserved its judgment on the matter on May 31 before ultimately rejecting the plea.
The ongoing dispute revolves around the historical and religious significance of the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple and the adjacent Shahi Idgah mosque, with both sides presenting their claims to the site. The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for the interpretation and application of the Places of Worship Act and the broader religious landscape in India.
The court has reopened the hearing on the Mathura temple-mosque dispute at the request of Shahi Idgah counsel Mehmood Pracha. The Allahabad High Court now scheduled August 12 as the date for framing the issues in the case.
This dispute reminiscent of the ongoing legal battle in Varanasi, where the Gyanvapi mosque and the Kashi Vishwanath temple stand adjacent to each other. In December, the Allahabad High Court dismissed pleas challenging the maintainability of a 1991 suit that sought the restoration of a temple at the site of the Gyanvapi mosque.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, in his ruling, emphasized,
“Either the Gyanvapi compound has a Hindu religious character or a Muslim religious character. It can’t have dual character at the same time,”
Thus determining that the Varanasi case was not barred under the Places of Worship Act.
Read Also: Allahabad High Court Reviews Plea for ASI Survey of Gyanvapi Mosque’s Wuzukhana
The Mathura case, like the Varanasi dispute, involves historical and religious claims over the site of the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple and the adjacent Shahi Idgah mosque.
The Hindu litigants allege that the mosque was built over a demolished temple during Aurangzeb’s era, while the mosque management and the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board argue that the suits are invalid under the Places of Worship Act and other legal provisions. The reopening of the hearing and the upcoming framing of issues on August 12 mark significant steps in the legal proceedings of this contentious dispute.