Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute | HC Order Adding ASI & Union In Suits Prima Facie Correct : Supreme Court Tells Masjid Committee

In the Mathura Krishna Janambhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute, the Management Committee of Idgah Mosque approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Allahabad High Court's order allowing the impleadment of ASI and Union in the main suits filed on behalf of the deity. 

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna , Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing the challenge to the Allahabad High Court Order of March 5, 2025, which allowed the plaintiff's amendment plea to implead the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Union of India as parties to the Suit. 

Notably, these 18 suits have been filed by the deity and Hindu worshippers seeking the removal of the Shahi Idgah on the claim that the site was originally a temple situated at the birthplace of Lord Krishna.

High Court Order Seems Prima Facie Correct: CJI Khanna 

During the hearing today, the CJI remarked that since the Masjid Committee was relying upon the provision of the Places of Worship Act 1991 in their defence, the original plaintiffs could seek the impleadment of ASI and Union as per the law. He added that the High Court order seemed prima facie correct. 

The CJI explained: 

"When you take the defence relying upon a particular Act, they are entitled to amend the plaint or even in replication, they take up the plea that this Act will not apply...therefore in that they didn't require amendment of the plaint, even in Order I Rule 10 - they (Court) could have impleaded them as parties"

"Prima facie the order to that extent appears to be correct in accordance with law, because when you are amending the plaint, you are not going into the merits."

Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, for the Shahi Mosque Committee, reverted, "But it is a new case my lords"

CJI clarified "No it is not a new case because the defence taken by you, they are entitled to challenge that...otherwise he can argue, you cannot even raise that defence...because the moment you raise your defence, they are entitled to say your defense is wrong." 

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, for the plaintiffs, submitted that the Places of Worship Act was not applicable to monuments which are covered by the ASI.

CJI Khanna said that the Court was already seized of the issue of whether mosques protected by the ASI would come under the ambit of the Places of Worship Act 1991. 

"As far as the question of whether the monuments protected by the ASI but are being used as a mosque, will be governed and protected under the Act, is subject matter already before us in a number of cases."

Advocate Ahmadi contended that by allowing the amendment application, the High Court went against the December 12 order of the Supreme Court which directed that in all pending suits related to places of worship, the Courts should not pass "effective" interim or final orders, including orders for survey. 

However, the CJI then replied that whether the present impugned order amounts to an effective interim order is not contested by the petitioner before the High Court and the Apex Court. He said: 

"To one extent you may be correct, because we said that there will be no effective interim orders - whether this is an effective interim order or not- you never raised that point before the High Court- not even in this SLP, where have you raised this?" 

The bench then proceeded to list the present matter with the pleas challenging Allahabad High Court's upholding the maintainability of suits.

Mosque Committee's Grounds Of Challenge To HC Order:

The Committee has challenged the said order on the grounds that :

(1) The Supreme Court is already seized of the main issue of maintainability of the plaintiff's suits in a challenge to the High Court order of August 1, 2024. 

As per the August 1 order, all 18 suits were held to be maintainable and could be heard on merits; 

(2) The Amendment Plaint  "changes the nature of the Suit and makes out a new case while negating the defence that has already been taken in the Written Statement by the Petitioner (Defendant in the Suit)" ; 

(3) The High Court allowed the amendment to the plaint in the absence of any application under Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC and no ground made to justify impleading ASI and Union as necessary and proper parties; 

(4) The High Court had dismissed the Committee's application seeking deferment of the said application for amendment of the plaint.

The Committee has also sought an interim stay on the operation of the impugned order as well as on the proceedings of the main suits till final disposal of the present challenge. 

The matter will now be heard on April 8. 

Background

The controversy is related to Mughal emperor Aurangzeb-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 challenged in the fresh suits 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.

In May 2023, the Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all suits pending before the Mathura Court praying for various reliefs pertaining to the dispute.

This transfer order was challenged in the Supreme Court by the mosque committee, and later by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board.

In December, 2023, the High Court allowed a plea seeking the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the Shahi Idgah Mosque. In January, 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the order. Subsequently, this stay was extended.

Appearance: Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi, Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Mr. R. H. A. Sikander, AOR, Ms. Mahima Rathi, Ms. Pragya Rathi, Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Mr. Sanawar, Mr. Kshitij Singh, Ms. Nujhat Naseem, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Case Details : COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, TRUST SHAHI MASJID IDGAH  v. BHAGWAN SHRIKRISHNA VIRAJMAN & ORS| SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.8788 OF 2025 

Click Here To Read/Download Order