The ongoing dispute between the Hindu and Muslim communities over the ownership rights of the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi and Shahi Eidgah in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh has taken a significant turn with recent developments in the Allahabad High Court.
On May 7, the temple side presented compelling evidence provided by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), asserting that the Shahi Eidgah is indeed the birthplace of Bhagwan Krishna.
However, amidst these deliberations, the role of the Waqf Board has emerged as a contentious issue. The Hindu side has raised concerns over the Waqf Board’s alleged practice of encroaching upon properties and declaring them as waqf assets. Advocate Reena N Singh, the counsel for the Hindu side, urged the court to prevent such practices, emphasising the need to safeguard historical sites from encroachment.
The matter is being heard by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain on the plea moved by the Muslim side regarding the maintainability of the suit.
The next hearing has been scheduled for May 15, with advocates representing the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust, including Hareram Tripathi, Mahendra Pratap Singh, Vinay Sharma, Ranapratap Singh, and senior advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, remaining present via video conferencing to represent their side.
One of the pivotal arguments made during the hearing was by Advocate Anil Kumar Singh, who highlighted that the disputed site is protected under the ASI Act of 1904, which supersedes the Places of Worship Act. He explained that based on archaeological evidence, the prison was partially converted into a Shahi Idgah, removing idols and utilizing the space accordingly.
The dispute centers around the ownership rights of 13.37 acres of land, with Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust claiming ownership of 10.9 acres and the Shahi Eidgah Mosque owning two and a half acres. The long-standing conflict took a significant turn when the Allahabad High Court permitted the inspection of the disputed mosque.
During previous hearings, the Hindu side argued that the Krishna Janmabhoomi is a protected monument and should be governed under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, rather than the Places of Worship Act.
The counsel for the Hindu side, Hari Shankar Jain, emphasised that the provisions of the Places of Worship Act are not applicable in this case, asserting the historical and cultural significance of the site.
The court’s decision on this case is eagerly awaited, as it holds implications not only for the disputing parties but also for the broader legal framework surrounding religious sites and historical monuments in India. The matter is expected to progress further in subsequent hearings, with both sides presenting their arguments in detail.
