On May 26, the Allahabad High Court transferred all suits concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute to itself. The single judge, Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, was hearing a transfer application to transfer a case from Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura, and all similar cases to itself.
The court said, “The instant transfer application is allowed.” Furthermore, the court directed the District Judge, Mathura, to prepare a list of “all such cases of similar nature involving the subject matter and touching upon its periphery, expressly or by implication include particulars of such cases” and forward it to the court within two weeks.
The court has also asked the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to nominate an appropriate bench for trial and disposal of the case.
The court 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.”
The appellant’s counsels, Advocates Prabhash Pandey and Pradeep Kumar Sharma filed the transfer application. The counsels argued that the matter has a historical background and involves the interests and sentiments of the public and large. The appellants further contended that the matter is “highly sensitive and inter-alia relates to belief and faith of crores of devotees of Lord Krishna.”
“The matter is of national importance and substantial questions of law involved in the suit. In fact, the complicated questions of law concerning a large section of society having its impact on the entire nation are required to be decided by the highest court of the State,” the appellants add.
The transfer application further submits that the suit involves the determination of questions pertaining to history, scriptures, and the interpretation of Hindu and Muslim law, therefore, the suit is “standing entirely on different footing unlike the normal civil suit as such of exceptional nature.”
The court noted that the gravity and background of the case had been tried to be equated with the case of Ram Janmabhoomi pertaining to Ayodhya and that, in 1989, the Allahabad High Court transferred all suits pertaining to the Ram Janmabhoomi case to itself.
The transfer application further avers that the if the suit is to be decided by the trial court, it will take a long time; however, the “matter needs be decided expeditiously to save the time of the litigant parties and to serve the interest of justice.” The court notes, “The point in issue involved in the suit for adjudication relates to Shri Krishna Janmbhoomi and the plaintiffs are claiming right to worship and removal of the present Shahi Eidgah Masjid.”
The court notes that the respondents have opposed the transfer of cases contending that “in case the transfer appellation is allowed it would be opening pandora box and in every case pertaining to religious places would be the voice of the concerned.”
The respondents further argued that, “The plaintiffs are rich persons, whereas, the opposite party no.2 has no sufficient means and financial position is very week. Convenience of the parties would be suitably adjusted if the suit is tried by the Civil Judge, Mathura. It would cause inconvenient to witnesses of both the sides to come over to Allahahad / Prayagraj from Mathura.”
However, the court notes that the respondents have not disputed the averments that the case falls under the ambit of Articles 25, 26 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The court said, “Under the circumstances, the Court will be failing in its duty if it does not prima facie consider the scope of Article 25 of the Constitution of India,” while allowing the transfer application.
Comments