Shahi Idgah Dispute: Allahabad HC Seeks Muslim Side Response On Plea

The Allahabad High Court, on Wednesday, sought a response from the Muslim side concerning a plea related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute at Mathura.

The court has set April 3 as the next hearing date for the case.

The plea, filed by the Hindu side, invokes Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It seeks to contest the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of all plaintiffs involved in the dispute. The case is being heard by Justice Ram Manohar Narain Mishra.

Amendment Application Approved

On March 5, the court had allowed an amendment application filed by the Hindu side. The amendment seeks to add the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as a party in the case. The Hindu side argued that the disputed property is currently a centrally protected monument under the supervision of ASI. Therefore, they contended that the facts surrounding this matter should be included in the case for a proper adjudication. The amendment also sought to implead ASI as a defendant.

The Muslim side opposed this plea, arguing that the addition of a new respondent through an amendment was not permissible. However, Justice Mishra ruled that the amendment could be treated as filed under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC, thus allowing the application. Justice Mishra explained, “No new prayer has been made in the prayer clause. In my considered opinion, neither the nature of the suit nor a new cause of action is being introduced or any new relief is prayed for in the proposed amendment.”

The court further emphasized that the amendment is necessary for the effective adjudication of the case and to prevent the filing of multiple suits on the same issue. Justice Mishra also highlighted that any potential harm to the defendant’s interest due to the amendment could not be compensated with costs alone.

Case Background

The Hindu side has filed 18 suits seeking possession of land after the “removal” of the Shahi Idgah mosque structure, as well as for the restoration of a temple and a permanent injunction. These suits claim that the mosque was built during the reign of Emperor Aurangzeb after demolishing a pre-existing temple.

Previous Court Rulings

In August 2024, the high court had rejected a plea from the Muslim side that challenged the maintainability of the Hindu worshippers’ suits. The court ruled that these suits were not barred by the Limitation Act, the Waqf Act, or the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits the conversion of any religious structure that existed on August 15, 1947.

On October 23, 2024, the court had also rejected an application from the Shahi Idgah mosque committee, which sought to recall the January 11, 2024 order that consolidated all suits related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute.

The ongoing case remains a crucial legal and historical matter, with the Hindu side seeking the “removal” of the mosque they claim was constructed after the destruction of a temple on the same site.

The case continues to attract significant attention, and the court’s rulings in the coming months could have major implications.