Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute | Plea Seeks Ban On Entry, 'Kar Seva' At The Site: Allahabad High Court Seeks DM, SSP's Sealed-Cover Report

The application has been moved by Ashutosh Maharaj, who claims to be the President of Sri Krishna Janmbhumi Mukti Nirman Trust (Registered), Mathura, through Advocate Reena N. Singh.

The application specifically seeks directions to the State Government and Administration to restrain any person or group from entering the disputed property for the purpose of any meeting, Kar Seva, or to organise any function at the disputed property with an object to disturb public peace.

Taking the application on record and inviting objections to the same, a bench of Justice Avnish Saxena directed the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura, to file their report in a sealed cover before the next date (August 25).

Importantly, the Single Judge was also informed that the mediation proceedings are continuing before the District Court, Mathura, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The bench was apprised that the next date fixed by the Supreme Court for Lok Adalat is from 21.08.2026 to 23.08.2026.

In view of this submission, the bench posted the matter for further hearing on August 25.

It may be noted that the High Court is presently dealing with 18 civil suits pertaining to the Krishna Janmabhumi title dispute.

In these cases, a common prayer has been made seeking the removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque from the 13.37-acre complex that it shares with the Katra Keshav Dev temple in Mathura. Additional prayers include seeking possession of the Shahi Idgah premises and demolishing the present structure.

In August 2024, the High Court DISMISSED the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC petition filed by the Mathura-based Shahi Eidgah (mosque) committee challenging the maintainability of 18 suits filed by Hindu worshipers and deity Shri Krishna Virajman, in connection with the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute in Mathura.

The Supreme Court (administrative side) recently wrote to the parties involved in the matter to explore amicable settlement of the three disputes under the 'Supreme Court Action for Mediated Adjudication and Disputes Harmonisation Across Nation-Samadhan Samaroh 2026 '.

The "Samadhan Samaroh" is proposed as a forum for facilitating dialogue and negotiated resolution, though any settlement would depend entirely on the consent of the parties involved. It will begin from August 21 to August 23.

Background

The controversy is related to the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb-era Shahi Eidgah mosque at Mathura, which is alleged to have been built after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna.

In 1968, a 'compromise agreement' was brokered between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which is the temple management authority, and the Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah, allowing both places of worship to operate simultaneously.

However, the validity of this agreement has now been challenged in the fresh suits by parties seeking various forms of relief in courts with respect to Krishna Janmabhoomi.

The litigants' contention is that the compromise agreement was made fraudulently and is invalid in law. Claiming the right to worship at the disputed site, many of them have sought the removal of the Shahi Eidgah mosque.

In May 2023, the Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all suits pending before the Mathura Court that prayed for various reliefs pertaining to the dispute.

This transfer order was challenged in the Supreme Court by the mosque committee, and later by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board.

In December 2023, the High Court allowed a plea seeking the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the Shahi Idgah Mosque. In January, 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the order. Subsequently, this stay was extended.

Appearances

Ashutosh Pandey, alias Ashutosh Brahmachari, appeared in person.

Advocates Vinay Sharma, Vipin Kumar Jaiswal, Sandeep Kumar Agrahari and Reena N. Singh (through video conferencing) appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Advocates Tasneem Ahmadi, Mehmood Pracha (through video conferencing), W.H. Khan, Nasiruzzaman with Tanveer Ahmad Khan and Imran, Afzal Ahmad, Azim Ahmad Kazmi, Pranav Ojha, Hare Ram Tripathi, Utkarsh Tripathi appeared on behalf of defendants.