11 Nov 2023 5:23 AM GMT
In the latest development in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, the Supreme Court on Friday (November 10) refused to suspend the ongoing proceedings before the Allahabad High Court which is hearing multiple suits seeking various reliefs, including declaration, injunction, and the right to worship at the mosque site as well as the removal of the structure.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah is hearing a special leave petition filed by the mosque committee challenging a May 2023 order of the Allahabad High Court transferring to itself a clutch of suits over the land dispute. A similar plea against the transfer order has also recently been filed by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, which was heard yesterday along with the mosque committee's petition.
During the latest hearing, appearing on behalf of the mosque committee, Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi once again highlighted the distance between Mathura and Allahabad, urging the proceedings to be shifted to a site closer to where the mosque is located, such as Delhi. She had made the same request on another occasion. Ahmadi told the bench that the management committee did not have the funds to travel almost 600 kilometres from Mathura to Allahabad for the trial. She said -
"It is very difficult to accept this submission. It's a weak point. It's not acceptable to us that you can come to Delhi but not go to Allahabad," Justice Kaul said, before speculating, "Distance is not the reason. Maybe some other issue..."
In aid of her contention, Ahmadi invoked Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure which lays down that a suit shall be instituted either where the defendant resides or works, or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. However, on behalf of the respondent, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan objected to Ahmadi's request to shift the trial to a place closer to Mathura, saying, "There's greater public confidence in the high court. Secondly, issues like these should not be kept festering."
Responding to the mosque committee's suggestion to shift the trial to Delhi, Justice Kaul said, "I'm sure you know Delhi is already overburdened with work. Now to ask it to take up a dispute from another state is not fair."
Ultimately, the bench deferred the consideration of the mosque committee's request. Justice Kaul said, "The high court, in its wisdom, has exercised its power to direct the transfer of the suits. Therefore, we are not the first court directing the transfer. Therefore, we'll have to test the order. In the earlier order, we had indicated that it would be more appropriate for the high court to hear it...Anyway, we'll have to hear this point. Without hearing both sides, it would not be fair to interfere with the high court order. We'll list it."
"The question will come," Justice Amanullah added, "We'll have to hear it on the point of why this should be treated as...We make it grow out of proportion. Let it be like any ordinary case. Let us not be party to this giving the issue unnecessary importance. Why not the first court itself should not...It'll have to be heard."
Ahmadi also attempted to persuade the court to stay the proceedings before the high court, pointing to an application recently filed seeking a survey of the mosque premises. However, the bench declined this request as well. Justice Kaul said, "If there's an improper order, we'll interfere."
Adjourning the hearing until January 9, the bench pronounced -
Background
The controversy is related to Mughal emperor Aurangazeb-era Shahi Eidgah mosque at Mathura, which is alleged to have been built after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Sri Krishna.
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.
In related news, last month, the apex court 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. Recently, the high court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) 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.
Case Details
Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14275 of 2023