Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute : Mosque Committee Approaches Supreme Court Against Allahabad HC Appointing Commission To Inspect Masjid
In the latest development in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, the mosque committee has approached the Supreme Court against a December 14 order of the Allahabad High Court by which it had allowed an application for the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the mosque. Earlier, on December 15 last year, the top court had refused to interfere with this order when...
In the latest development in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, the mosque committee has approached the Supreme Court against a December 14 order of the Allahabad High Court by which it had allowed an application for the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the mosque. Earlier, on December 15 last year, the top court had refused to interfere with this order when an oral request was made at the Bar to grant a stay order.
Now, the Committee has filed a Special Leave Petition, through Advocate-on-Record RHA Sikander, formally challenging the High Court's order.
The Allahabad High Court's order allowed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of the deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman and seven others in an original suit. The application contended that Hindu God Krishna's birthplace lies beneath the mosque, presenting various signs establishing the mosque's Hindu provenance. The main suit, presently pending before the Allahabad High Court, seeks a declaration that the disputed land, including the area where the Shahi Eidgah Mosque is situated, belongs to Lord Shree Krishna Virajman. The plea also requests a direction to the defendants, including the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, to remove the mosque in question.
The day after the high court passed this order, the Supreme Court, while 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 land dispute, refused Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi's oral plea to stay the order for the appointment for a court commissioner.
Ahmadi, representing the Committee, had raised concerns over the high court considering interlocutory applications having 'far-reaching implications', even while the mosque committee's challenge to the high court's jurisdiction was pending before the top court. The Justice Khanna-led bench, however, expressed disinclination to interfere with the order, noting that it had not been formally challenged or brought before the bench. "How can I stay the order without it being before me?" the judge asked.
In the special leave petition, the mosque committee has argued that the High Court ought to have considered its plea for rejection of the plaint before deciding on any other miscellaneous applications in the suit. The Committee has sought for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. Merely because the application for the appointment of a commission was filed eight days before the application for the plaint's rejection was not a reason for deciding the former first.
The mosque committee has also disputed the plaintiffs' claims by arguing that they had failed to provide substantial evidence supporting their assertion that the original karagaar, the purported birthplace of Lord Krishna, is situated beneath the Shahi Eidgah Mosque. The committee also questioned the plaintiffs' demand for an in-depth survey to validate their allegations, characterising it as mere guesswork. Further, it alleged that the plaintiffs had an ulterior motive to seek demolition of the mosque during the pendency of the suit.
Denying the claim regarding certain architectural features allegedly pointing to a Hindu provenance, the mosque committee has termed the plaintiffs' application as a blatant effort to mislead the court to believe Mughal architectural designs as Hindu religious symbols.
It also contended that unless the primary prayer of the plaintiffs – the cancellation of the 1973 and 1974 judgments – was addressed, the stage for determining the factual position of the building, as stated in the application, remains irrelevant.
Background
The controversy is related to Mughal emperor Aurangazeb-era Shahi Eidgah mosque at Mathura, which is alleged to have been built after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Lord 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 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.
"...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, and later by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board.
In related news, the apex court in September 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. Recently, the high court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the recognition of the disputed site as Krishna Janmabhoomi and the removal of the mosque after noting that several suits for declaration, injunction, and the right to worship at the site as well as for removal of the structure was already pending before it.
Case Details
Committee of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman & Ors.