Allahabad: In a significant development in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah dispute, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea that sought to replace the term “Shahi Idgah Mosque” with “disputed structure” in all ongoing and future proceedings related to the case, as per a report by the Livelaw.
The single-judge bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra orally stated that the application was being dismissed “at this stage.” The petition had been filed by Advocate Mahendra Pratap Singh in Original Suit No. 13 of 2023 and was supported by plaintiffs in other related suits, including OSUT No. 07 of 2023.
The Krishna Janmabhoomi case involves 18 suits that have been clubbed together and are currently being heard by the Allahabad High Court. These suits seek the removal of what the petitioners term as “illegal encroachments” on the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi premises, presently occupied in part by the Shahi Eidgah Mosque.
The controversy centers around the 17th-century Shahi Eidgah mosque in Mathura, which petitioners allege was constructed on the ruins of a Hindu temple marking the birthplace of Lord Krishna during the reign of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.
A compromise agreement was signed in 1968 between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan (temple authority) and the Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah, allowing both religious sites to function adjacent to each other. However, this agreement is now being contested by several litigants who argue it was fraudulent and legally void. Many of these parties are also seeking the demolition of the mosque and the right to worship at the site.
In May 2023, the High Court consolidated all the suits from Mathura courts and brought them under its own jurisdiction. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by the Shahi Eidgah Mosque Committee and later by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board.
In December 2023, the Allahabad High Court allowed a plea for the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the Shahi Idgah Mosque. However, the Supreme Court stayed this order in January 2024 and later extended the stay.
Prominent counsels appearing for the plaintiffs included Hari Shankar Jain, Mahendra Pratap Singh, Saurabh Tiwari, Reena N. Singh, and others, many of whom joined through video conferencing. Defending the mosque were advocates including Tasneem Ahmadi, Nasiruzzaman, Pranav Ojha, Afzal Ahmad, Tanveer Ahmad Khan, and Imran.
The High Court’s decision to reject the terminology change plea is likely to influence the narrative and direction of future proceedings in this highly sensitive and politically charged case.
