Mathura Temple-Mosque Dispute: Hindu Litigants Files Caveat In SC

Mathura Temple

Hindu litigants have submitted a caveat in the Supreme Court, requesting a hearing if the Muslim side challenges a recent Allahabad High Court decision.

This decision rejected a plea against the maintainability of 18 cases concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah temple-mosque dispute in Mathura.

Filed by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, the caveat aims to prevent any ex-parte order against the Hindu litigants if the opposition approaches the Supreme Court. A caveat application ensures that no adverse decision is made without the concerned party being heard.

On August 1, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea challenging the maintainability of 18 cases related to the dispute. The court ruled that the religious character of the mosque needs to be examined, rejecting the Muslim side’s argument that the suits violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991. This Act forbids altering the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the day of India’s Independence, exempting only the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.

The Hindu litigants seek the “removal” of the mosque, claiming it was built after demolishing a temple and still bears signs of its original temple structure. The mosque management committee and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board argued that the suits were barred under the Places of Worship Act and other laws.

On May 31, the Allahabad High Court reserved its judgment on the maintainability plea after hearing both sides but later reopened the hearing at the request of Shahi Idgah counsel Mehmood Pracha. The high court has now scheduled August 12 for framing of issues.

The Mathura dispute is similar to the legal battle in Varanasi, where the Gyanvapi mosque stands adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath temple. In December, the Allahabad High Court dismissed pleas challenging the maintainability of a 1991 suit seeking the restoration of a temple where the Gyanvapi mosque now stands.

In that ruling, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal stated, “Either the Gyanvapi compound has a Hindu religious character or a Muslim religious character. It can’t have dual character at the same time,” concluding that the Varanasi case was not barred under the Places of Worship Act.