Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Dispute | Supreme Court Declines Mosque Committee's Request To Stay Proceedings Before Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah is 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. A similar plea against the transfer order has also recently been filed by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, which was heard yesterday along with the mosque committee's petition.

During the latest hearing, appearing on behalf of the mosque committee, Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi once again highlighted the distance between Mathura and Allahabad, urging the proceedings to be shifted to a site closer to where the mosque is located, such as Delhi. She had made the same request on another occasion. Ahmadi 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. It's also an overnight journey. There was a hearing on the 7th for which notice was given last minute. We rushed to Allahabad. Another hearing has been scheduled in a few days. We cannot afford this and are being pushed into a corner where we cannot defend ourselves."

"It is very difficult to accept this submission. It's a weak point. It's not acceptable to us that you can come to Delhi but not go to Allahabad," Justice Kaul said, before speculating, "Distance is not the reason. Maybe some other issue..."

In aid of her contention, Ahmadi invoked Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure which lays down that a suit shall be instituted either where the defendant resides or works, or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. However, on behalf of the respondent, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan objected to Ahmadi's request to shift the trial to a place closer to Mathura, saying, "There's greater public confidence in the high court. Secondly, issues like these should not be kept festering."

Responding to the mosque committee's suggestion to shift the trial to Delhi, Justice Kaul said, "I'm sure you know Delhi is already overburdened with work. Now to ask it to take up a dispute from another state is not fair."

Ultimately, the bench deferred the consideration of the mosque committee's request. Justice Kaul said, "The high court, in its wisdom, has exercised its power to direct the transfer of the suits. Therefore, we are not the first court directing the transfer. Therefore, we'll have to test the order. In the earlier order, we had indicated that it would be more appropriate for the high court to hear it...Anyway, we'll have to hear this point. Without hearing both sides, it would not be fair to interfere with the high court order. We'll list it."

"The question will come," Justice Amanullah added, "We'll have to hear it on the point of why this should be treated as...We make it grow out of proportion. Let it be like any ordinary case. Let us not be party to this giving the issue unnecessary importance. Why not the first court itself should not...It'll have to be heard."

Ahmadi also attempted to persuade the court to stay the proceedings before the high court, pointing to an application recently filed seeking a survey of the mosque premises. However, the bench declined this request as well. Justice Kaul said, "If there's an improper order, we'll interfere."

Adjourning the hearing until January 9, the bench pronounced -

"The report of the high court has been perused. 16 suits have been transferred. Apart from that, there are two more suits. There are 18 suits to be tried in total. It appears that the matter would have to be heard. Let both parties file a short synopsis running into not more than three pages each."

Background