PRAYAGRAJ: Allahabad high court Thursday upheld the maintainability of a bunch of suits seeking “removal” of the Shahi Idgah mosque adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura. The petitions claim that the Aurangazeb-era mosque was built after the demolition of a temple that marked the spot where Lord Krishna was born.
Dismissing a petition filed by the Idgah mosque committee that challenged the maintainability of these suits, Justice Mayank Kumar Jain said that the suits are not barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits the conversion of any religious structure as it existed on August 15, 1947; Waqf Act, 1995, or Specific Relief Act, 1963.
“On reading of the plaints as a whole and in a meaningful manner, perusal of the material placed on records, consideration of the arguments advanced by the rival parties, and settled legal propositions, I conclude that the plaints in all the suits of the plaintiffs disclose a cause of action and they do not appear to be barred by any provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995; the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991; the Specific Relief Act, 1963; the Limitation Act, 1963 and Order XIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908,” Justice Jain said in his order on Thursday, fixing August 12 for the framing of issues.
Before reaching his conclusion, Justice Jain quoted several past judgments, including by the same high court in the ‘UP Sunni Central Waqf Board Vs. Ancient Idol of Swayambhoo Lord Vishweshwar’ (KVT-Gyanvapi case).
“Either the Gyanvapi Compound has a Hindu religious character or a Muslim religious character. It can’t have dual characters at the same time. The religious character has to be ascertained by the Court considering pleadings of the parties, and evidence led in support of pleadings. No conclusion can be reached on the basis of framing of preliminary issues of law. The Act only bars conversion of place of worship, but it does not define or lay down any procedure for determining the religious character of place of worship that existed on 15.08.1947,” he quoted the Dec 19, 2023 order of the Allahabad HC.
Regarding the application of Waqf Act, he said: “The present superstructure came into existence on the basis of the compromise dated 12.10.1968. It is also to be taken into consideration that during several rounds of litigation, prior to institution of Suit No. 43 of 1967 nowhere it was pleaded that the suit property was a waqf property….Thus, at this stage it cannot be assumed that the suit property was notified as a ‘waqf property’ under this Notification ( notification of 1944).”
Justice Jain had reserved his verdict on June 6, 2024, after hearing pleas of the Shahi Idgah mosque committee and UP Sunni Central Waqf Board. They had moved applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) regarding the maintainability of suits of Hindu worshippers. In all, 18 pleas of similar nature had been filed in Mathura civil court on the dispute. In May 2023, the HC had transferred all the petitions for a joint hearing.
But the mosque management committee and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board had challenged the maintainability of these suits arguing that the suits were barred under Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 that prohibits changing the status of any place of worship from what it was on the day of the country’s Independence.
Hindu side counsel Vishnu Shankar Jain told reporters that with the dismissal of the plea challenging maintainability, the HC would continue to hear all the cases.
Dismissing a petition filed by the Idgah mosque committee that challenged the maintainability of these suits, Justice Mayank Kumar Jain said that the suits are not barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits the conversion of any religious structure as it existed on August 15, 1947; Waqf Act, 1995, or Specific Relief Act, 1963.
“On reading of the plaints as a whole and in a meaningful manner, perusal of the material placed on records, consideration of the arguments advanced by the rival parties, and settled legal propositions, I conclude that the plaints in all the suits of the plaintiffs disclose a cause of action and they do not appear to be barred by any provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995; the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991; the Specific Relief Act, 1963; the Limitation Act, 1963 and Order XIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908,” Justice Jain said in his order on Thursday, fixing August 12 for the framing of issues.
Before reaching his conclusion, Justice Jain quoted several past judgments, including by the same high court in the ‘UP Sunni Central Waqf Board Vs. Ancient Idol of Swayambhoo Lord Vishweshwar’ (KVT-Gyanvapi case).
“Either the Gyanvapi Compound has a Hindu religious character or a Muslim religious character. It can’t have dual characters at the same time. The religious character has to be ascertained by the Court considering pleadings of the parties, and evidence led in support of pleadings. No conclusion can be reached on the basis of framing of preliminary issues of law. The Act only bars conversion of place of worship, but it does not define or lay down any procedure for determining the religious character of place of worship that existed on 15.08.1947,” he quoted the Dec 19, 2023 order of the Allahabad HC.
Regarding the application of Waqf Act, he said: “The present superstructure came into existence on the basis of the compromise dated 12.10.1968. It is also to be taken into consideration that during several rounds of litigation, prior to institution of Suit No. 43 of 1967 nowhere it was pleaded that the suit property was a waqf property….Thus, at this stage it cannot be assumed that the suit property was notified as a ‘waqf property’ under this Notification ( notification of 1944).”
Justice Jain had reserved his verdict on June 6, 2024, after hearing pleas of the Shahi Idgah mosque committee and UP Sunni Central Waqf Board. They had moved applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) regarding the maintainability of suits of Hindu worshippers. In all, 18 pleas of similar nature had been filed in Mathura civil court on the dispute. In May 2023, the HC had transferred all the petitions for a joint hearing.
But the mosque management committee and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board had challenged the maintainability of these suits arguing that the suits were barred under Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 that prohibits changing the status of any place of worship from what it was on the day of the country’s Independence.
Hindu side counsel Vishnu Shankar Jain told reporters that with the dismissal of the plea challenging maintainability, the HC would continue to hear all the cases.