Krishna Janmabhoomi Case: Supreme Court Says Allahabad HC Hasn't Given Information About Suits Despite Earlier Order, Sends Reminder

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia is currently hearing a special leave petition filed by the mosque committee challenging a May 2023 order of the Allahabad High Court transferring to itself a clutch of suits over the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute.

On the last occasion, the bench indicated that it would be better if the high court decided the matter to avoid the ‘disquiet’ caused by a multiplicity of proceedings and prolonged pendency of the dispute. The court also sought details from the high court registry pertaining to the civil suits that were directed to be consolidated and transferred from the trial court.

During today's hearing, the court revealed that despite its earlier order, no information or document has been received from the registry of the Allahabad High Court. While adjourning the hearing until October 30, the court directed a reminder be sent along with the last order to the high court's registry. The Justice Kaul-led bench also instructed the July 21 order to be placed before Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker "on the administrative side to ensure a proper response" and the concerned registrar to be personally present in court on the next day.

Before the hearing was adjourned, Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, appearing for the mosque committee, alleged that this recent spate of litigation was initiated by 'outsiders' even though Hindus and Muslims have lived in harmony for the last five decades in the region. She argued -

"The decrees that have been challenged in these suits are neither that of '73 nor of '68. For the last 50 years, both communities have been living in peace. There has never been a problem. It's only now that these suits are being filed by outsiders who have either formed these trusts or taken over trusts that existed."

Highlighting the distance between Mathura and Allahabad, the counsel also urged the proceedings to be shifted to a site closer to where the mosque is located. She told the bench that the management committee did not have the funds to travel almost 600 kilometres from Mathura to Allahabad for the trial. She said, "From Mathura to Allahabad, it's 600 kilometres, but from Mathura to Delhi, it's around 150 kilometres. My clients, the petitioners, do not have the funds to travel to Allahabad. If considering Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this could be shifted to a closer location..."

"This is a problem of the benches in Allahabad and Lucknow," Justice Kaul replied, "Places proximate to Lucknow, because of our jurisdiction, continue to be covered by the Allahabad bench. That is an unfortunate consequence, but no one wants to make a hard decision there."

Then, assuring Ahmadi that her concerns over the distance between Mathura and Allahabad would be considered, Justice Kaul said, "Let us have the list of suits first. Then we'll tell you. But first, we need to know what the contours are."

Background

The controversy is related to Mughal emperor Aurangazeb-era Shahi Eidgah mosque at Mathura, which is alleged to be built after demolishing the Temple at the birth place of Sri Krishna.

In 1968, a 'compromise agreement' was brokered between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which is the temple management authority, and the Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah allowing both places of worship to operate simultaneously. However, the validity of this agreement has now been doubted by parties seeking various forms of relief in courts with respect to the Krishna Janmabhoomi. The litigants’ contention is that the compromise agreement was made fraudulently and is invalid in law. Claiming a right to worship at the disputed site, many of them have sought the Shahi Eidgah mosque’s removal.

In May, the Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all the suits pending before the Mathura court praying for various reliefs pertaining to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, allowing the transfer application filed by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and seven others. In the operative part of its order, a single-judge bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra observed:

"...Looking to the fact that as many as 10 suits are stated to be pending before the civil court and also there 25 should be more suits that can be said to be pending and issue can be said to be seminal public importance affected the masses beyond tribe and beyond communities having not proceeded an inch further since their institution on merits for past two to three years, provides full justification for withdrawal of all the suits touching upon the issue involved in the suit from the civil court concerned to this Court under Section 24(1)(b) CPC."

This transfer order has been challenged in the Supreme Court by the mosque committee.

In related news, the apex court has recently refused to entertain a plea by the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust seeking a scientific survey of Shahi Eidgah Masjid premises, leaving all questions relating to the ongoing land dispute open to the Allahabad High Court to decide.

Case Details

Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14275 of 2023