5 Jan 2024 5:41 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Friday (January 5) refused to entertain a plea against an Allahabad High Court order dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) for the recognition of Mathura's Shahi Eidgah Mosque site as Krishna Janmabhoomi and the removal of the mosque. However, it was clarified that the petitioner could move a separate petition challenging the vires of any legislation.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta was hearing a special leave petition filed by Advocate Mahek Maheshwari, following the dismissal of the PIL by the Allahabad High Court last October. Advocate Mahek Maheshwari, the petitioner, had sought the recognition of the disputed site as the actual birthplace of Hindu God Krishna and urged for the land to be handed over to Hindus for the establishment of a trust for Krishna Janmabhoomi Janmasthan. Through the PIL, a challenge was mounted against the historical narrative, with the petitioner claiming that the site predated Islam and questioning the legality of the compromises made with respect to the disputed land in the past.
Right at the outset of the hearing today, Justice Khanna told the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the PIL was not required since several civil suits on the same issue are pending.
In response, the counsel complained that the high court had only dismissed Maheshwari's petition on grounds that other suits were pending. "The high court has dismissed it on grounds that suit is pending by somebody else. I don't know what suit is about."
"Let's not have multiplicity of litigation. You filed it as a PIL, which is why it was rejected. File it as otherwise, we will see," Justice Khanna said.
When requested to clarify that the petitioner was at liberty to file a separate petition, Justice Khanna said, "It has been clarified in the impugned judgment."
"Can I file it as a separate petition?" the counsel asked again.
"Yes yes. It has been made very clear. Not as a PIL," Justice Khanna repeated, before pronouncing -
The Allahabad High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava had rejected Maheshwari's petition on grounds that the issues raised were already under consideration in pending suits. The lawyer challenged this order in the Supreme Court, asserting that the high court's dismissal overlooked critical facts and failed to delve into the merits of the case. The petitioner contends that the PIL was in the public interest, defending the fundamental rights of Hindus under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The petition not only assailed the high court's verdict but also questioned the constitutionality of sections of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Notably, Maheshwari sought a court-monitored GPRS-based excavation by the Archaeological Survey of India of the disputed structure and as a interim measure, asked for directions to allow Hindus to conduct prayers at Shahi Idgah Mosque, Mathura on a specific day of the week, preferably Thursday, and on the festive occasion of Krishna Janmastami.
In related news, the mosque committee has approached the Supreme Court against a December 14 order of the Allahabad High Court by which it had allowed an application for the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the mosque. Earlier, on December 15 last year, the top court had refused to interfere with this order when an oral request was made at the Bar to grant a stay order.
In 1968, a 'compromise agreement' was brokered between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which is the temple management authority, and the Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah allowing both places of worship to operate simultaneously. However, the validity of this agreement has now been doubted by parties seeking various forms of relief in courts with respect to Krishna Janmabhoomi. The litigants' contention is that the compromise agreement was made fraudulently and is invalid in law. Claiming a right to worship at the disputed site, many of them have sought the Shahi Eidgah mosque's removal.
"...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."
This transfer order has been challenged in the Supreme Court by the mosque committee, and later by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board.
Notably, the apex court in September refused to entertain a plea by the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust seeking a scientific survey of Shahi Eidgah Masjid premises, leaving all questions relating to the ongoing land dispute open to the Allahabad High Court to decide. In October, the high court dismissed Maheshwari's PIL petition seeking the recognition of the disputed site as Krishna Janmabhoomi and the removal of the mosque after noting that several suits for declaration, injunction, and the right to worship at the site as well as for removal of the structure was already pending before it. This has led to the present challenge before the Supreme Court.