On Tuesday (16th January), the Supreme Court halted the Allahabad High Court judgment appointing an Advocate Commissioner to visit the Shahi Eidgah mosque in Mathura as part of the Krishna Janmabhoomi litigation.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta issued the interim order while issuing notice on a special leave petition presented by the mosque committee against the Allahabad High Court’s December 14 order, which allowed an application for the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the mosque.
#BREAKING #SupremeCourtofIndia STAYS the #allahabadhighcourt order appointing a court commissioner to inspect the Shahi Idgah Mosque. #krishnajanmabhoomi pic.twitter.com/d2DwNQsOTM
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) January 16, 2024
Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, representing the Mosque Committee, said that the High Court could not have issued the ruling while an application to reject the matter as barred by the Places of Worship Act 1991 (under ruling VII Rule 11 CPC) is pending. She also relied on the recent decision in Asma Latheef v Shabbir Ahmad, which stated that when a suit’s maintainability is called into doubt, the trial court must first consider whether it has jurisdiction before giving interim relief.
While adopting the legal contention on a prima facie basis, the bench highlighted concerns about how the commission application was filed.
“We have reservations about this application. Look at the prayer. It’s very ambiguous. Read it. You cannot create an omnibus application like this. You have to be very clear about what you want the local commissioner to do,” Justice Khanna instructed Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the plaintiffs.
“There are legal concerns that arise. Apart from that, the application for a local commissioner could be clearer. Is it possible to create an application like this?”… We are staying the operation of the impugned order until the commission is completed,” Justice Khanna stated.
The bench issued a notice to return the petition by January 23, 2024. “Some legal issues arise for consideration, including the question in light of a judgment of this court in Asma Lateef. Proceedings before the High Court can continue but the commission will not be executed in the meantime,” the bench stated in its order.
The Allahabad High Court’s decision granted an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman and seven others in an initial lawsuit.
The proposal claimed that the birthplace of the Hindu God Krishna was located beneath the structure, and it provided evidence to support the structure’s Hindu origins. The primary claim, which is currently pending before the Allahabad High Court, seeks a ruling that Lord Shree Krishna Virajman owns the disputed land, which includes the structure of Shahi Eidgah Mosque. The plea also seeks that the defendants, including the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, remove the structure in question.
The day after the high court issued this ruling, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi attempted to have the order for the appointment of a court commissioner delayed or stayed orally before the Supreme Court, which was considering a special leave petition filed by the mosque committee contesting an order from the Allahabad High Court dated May 2023 that transferred several suits related to the land dispute to itself. Senior Advocate Ahmadi was told that the order had not been formally challenged. Later, the Mosque panel filed a special leave petition to formally challenge the High Court’s order.
The mosque committee contended in its special leave petition that the High Court should have weighed its appeal for the plaint’s rejection before deciding on any other miscellaneous motions in the matter. The Committee has requested that the plaint be rejected because the claim is precluded under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991. The mere fact that the application for commission appointment was filed eight days before the application for plaint rejection did not justify determining the former first.
The mosque committee has also challenged the plaintiffs’ allegations, claiming that they failed to give substantial proof to support their claim that Lord Krishna’s recognized birthplace, is beneath the Shahi Eidgah mosque. The committee also questioned the plaintiffs’ request for an in-depth poll to validate their claims, describing it as simple speculation. It further claimed that the plaintiffs had an ulterior motive for attempting to demolish the mosque while the dispute was still pending.
Denying the argument about specific architectural aspects indicating a Hindu origin, the mosque committee described the plaintiffs’ plea as a transparent attempt to ‘deceive the court into believing Mughal architectural styles were Hindu religious symbols’.
It further maintained that unless the plaintiffs’ major prayer – the revocation of the 1973 and 1974 judgments – is addressed, the stage for evaluating the building’s factual situation, as indicated in the application, is rendered ineffective.
