The Allahabad High Court on August 1, upheld the maintainability of 18 civil suits filed by the Hindu side in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute in Mathura. This ruling, delivered by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain, has significant implications for the contentious legal battle over the 13.37-acre complex claimed to be the birthplace of Bhagwan Krishna.
The Krishna Janmabhoomi case revolves around the Shahi Idgah Mosque, which was allegedly constructed by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in 1669-70 after demolishing a temple at what is believed to be the birthplace of Bhagwan Krishna.
In 1968, an agreement was brokered between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, the temple management authority, and the Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah, allowing both the mosque and the temple to operate within the complex. This agreement has been a point of contention, with Hindu litigants alleging it was executed under dubious circumstances and lacks legal validity.
Arguments from the Hindu Side
Advocates representing the Hindu plaintiffs, including Vishnu Shanker Jain, Reena N Singh, and others, argued that the Shahi Idgah Mosque occupies land that historically belongs to the Krishna Janmasthan. They asserted that the 1968 agreement was executed under dubious circumstances and lacked legal standing.
The Hindu side maintained that:
Illegality of Occupation: The Shahi Idgah Mosque is not registered as a property in government records, and its occupation is illegal. If the property is indeed a Waqf property, the Waqf Board should provide documentation proving its donation.
Inapplicability of Legal Acts: The plaintiffs argued that the Places of Worship Act 1991, Limitation Act 1963, and Waqf Act do not apply in this case. They contended that these acts cannot legalise the occupation of the land and conversion into Waqf property without proper ownership.
Historical Significance: The disputed property is protected under the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1958, as per a notification issued on February 26, 1920, further invalidating claims of it being a Waqf property.
The Masjid Committee’s Challenge
The Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah, represented by advocates Tasneem Ahmadi, Nasiruzzaman, and others, contested the maintainability of the suits, arguing that they are barred by:
Places of Worship Act 1991: This act prohibits altering the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
Limitation Act 1963: The committee claimed that the suits, filed in 2020, are time-barred, given that the agreement and the construction of the mosque date back to 1968 and 1669-70, respectively.
Specific Relief Act 1963: They argued that a permanent injunction could only be granted to those in actual possession of the property at the time of filing the suit.
The Masjid Committee also asserted that disputes regarding the character of Waqf property should be resolved by the Waqf Tribunal, not the civil court.
The High Court’s Ruling
Justice Mayank Kumar Jain dismissed the Masjid Committee’s objections, stating that the 18 suits filed by the Hindu plaintiffs are maintainable. The court ruled that the suits are not barred under the Places of Worship Act 1991, Limitation Act 1963, or Specific Relief Act 1963, thus allowing the cases to be heard on their merits.
Key Highlights of the Verdict
Substantial Grounds for Claims: The court found sufficient grounds in the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the illegal occupation of the land and the historical and religious significance of the disputed site.
Empirical Data Requirement: The court emphasised the need for the state to justify any sub-classification of land based on empirical data, ensuring that the legal process is not swayed by political expediency or arbitrary decisions.
The court underscored the importance of protecting the rights of Hindu worshippers to access and perform rituals at the Krishna Janmabhoomi, highlighting the historical and cultural importance of the site.
