India

Mathura Shahi Idgah Row: SC To Hear Mosque Committee’s Plea On Jan 15

The Supreme Court is set to hear a plea on January 15 concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.

The mosque management committee has challenged a ruling rejecting its petition on the maintainability of 15 cases related to the temple-mosque issue.

On August 1, 2024, a single judge bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Committee of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah’s plea, stating that the “religious character” of the Shahi Idgah mosque needed to be determined.

The court ruled that the 15 cases, concerning the temple-mosque dispute, could proceed, as the religious nature of the site had yet to be decided. This judgment came after the mosque committee challenged the maintainability of these cases.

The case was taken up by a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar on December 9, 2024, with the matter set for another hearing on January 15, as per the Supreme Court’s schedule.

The Hindu side, represented by advocate Barun Sinha, argued that the mosque committee should have first appealed to the division bench of the Allahabad High Court. Sinha referred to the Allahabad High Court Rules, stating that an appeal could not be filed directly in the Supreme Court at this stage. He maintained that the plea was not “maintainable” in the Supreme Court and that the mosque committee should have pursued an intra-court appeal.

The Chief Justice responded by indicating that the court would carefully consider the matter and would give the mosque committee an opportunity to present its arguments. The bench expressed concern over whether the mosque committee’s appeal was premature, particularly given the rules surrounding appeals in such cases.

The mosque committee has contended that the Hindu litigants’ suits violate the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibits changing the religious character of any place of worship from what it was on the day of India’s independence. The committee claims that these suits, which seek the demolition of the mosque, are not maintainable under this act. The 1991 law excludes the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute but otherwise protects the status of other religious sites.

The Hindu side, on the other hand, maintains that the mosque was built over a pre-existing temple and therefore should be removed. The Allahabad High Court ruled that the term “religious character” was not defined in the 1991 Act and that the disputed place could not simultaneously hold the religious identities of both a temple and a mosque. It directed that the religious character of the site as it existed on August 15, 1947, must be determined through both documentary and oral evidence from both parties.

The court concluded that the cases filed by Hindu litigants were not barred by the Wakf Act, 1995, the Places of Worship Act, 1991, or other related laws. Hindu advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain indicated that his clients would approach the Supreme Court to vacate the stay on the survey of the mosque ordered by the Allahabad High Court.

This dispute follows a pattern similar to the ongoing legal battles in Varanasi, where the Gyanvapi mosque and the Kashi Vishwanath temple are located side by side, fueling similar temple-mosque conflicts.

Meera Verma