Supreme Court Rejects PIL Seeking Archaeological Survey of Mathura’s Shahi Idgah Mosque.

In a recent development, the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking an archaeological survey of Mathura’s Shahi Idgah Mosque and the declaration of the site as Shree Krishna Janmabhoomi. The court emphasized the ongoing adjudication of civil suits related to the issue and discouraged the multiplicity of litigation.

The petitioner, Mahek Maheshwari, had filed the PIL challenging the validity of the 1991 Places of Worship Act, protecting the character of places of worship existing as of August 15, 1947. The court ruled that challenging the Act could be pursued separately and was not maintainable as part of the PIL.

Maheshwari’s plea contended that historical texts identified the site as Shree Krishna Janmabhoomi land and argued that the Shahi Idgah Mosque should be removed, as it was not a proper mosque under Islamic jurisprudence. The court clarified that its dismissal of the PIL did not prevent parties from challenging the Act’s validity.

Currently, the Supreme Court is handling various petitions related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah land dispute. The mosque management committee has challenged the transfer of suits from Mathura civil courts to itself by the Allahabad high court. Additionally, the court refused to stay a survey of the mosque premises and set a date to consider objections raised by the committee and UP Sunni Wakf Board.

The dispute involves the mosque abutting the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple, and various suits seek the return of the land to the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust. The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for a timely resolution of the sensitive case, directing the high court to provide details of all pending cases related to the dispute.

As of now, multiple suits are demanding the annulment of a compromise reached in 1968 between the mosque committee and Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh, allowing the status quo on the 13.37-acre land. Stay tuned for further developments in this evolving legal battle.

Leave a comment