Krishna Janmabhoomi Case | Dispute In Supreme Court Over Which Suit Represents Entire Devotees

In the Krishna Janmabhoomi Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute, the plaintiffs in one suit (filed seeking the removal of the mosque from the contested site) have approached the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court allowing the plaintiffs in another suit to be treated as representatives of the entire devotees of Lord Krishna.

Altogether, there are 18 suits on the issue, which the Allahabad High Court has transferred to itself. 15 of them are consolidated and the remaining are listed separately. In July this year, the High Court allowed the plaintiffs in the suit no.17 to be treated as the representatives of the entire devotees. Suit number 17 was filed in the name of the deity Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman through next friend. The other plaintiffs in suit no.17 are Surendra Kumar Gupta, Mahabir Sharma and Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava.

Challenging this order of the Allahabad High Court, the plaintiffs in suit no.1, which is also filed in the name of the deity through next friend, approached the Supreme Court. The other plaintiffs in the suit no.1 are Ranjana Agnihotri, Pravesh Kumar, Rajesh Mani Tripathi, Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Shivaji Singh, and Tripurapuri Tiwari.

These petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, told the Supreme Court that they are the first parties to file the suit, and the other suits were merely "copycat" suits. .

Divan told a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe that the petiitoners' suit was made the lead matter, and it was improper for the High Court to elevate Suit No. 17 in this way.

“Original Suit No. 1/2023 was made the leading case. And if we make a representative suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, it ought to be the leading suit, because this is the suit that has done everything. Everyone else is a copycat and thematically, has taken broadly the issues. So this is a very, very serious part…If it is to be done, there has to be a proper process. You can't have some copycat suits which suddenly come out in this manner”, Divan said.

The High Court had allowed an application filed by the plaintiffs in suit no.17 under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC “in the manner that the plaintiff is permitted to sue in representative capacity on behalf of and for the benefit of all the devotees of Lord Shri Krishna...” The High Court also ordered that the defendants in the suit would be treated as the representatives of the Muslim community.

Divan said that the High Court had gone far beyond the application. The application in Suit No. 17, he submitted, sought only permission to treat the defendants as representatives of the Muslim community, yet the High Court granted the plaintiffs in Suit 17 permission to act as representative plaintiffs on behalf of the Lord Krishna devotees as well. He emphasised that this had been done without any notice to the other plaintiffs in the consolidated matters.

Divan pointed out that the High Court had described the prayer clause in the application as “not happily worded”, and had interpreted the intention of the plaintiffs from the pleadings. He said the High Court had treated the suit as a representative action for the plaintiffs even though the application did not contain such a prayer.

He argued that Suit No. 17 had been given a representative role on the plaintiff side without hearing anyone else. He clarified that he was not arguing that the High Court lacked power under Order 1 Rule 8(1)(b) CPC to modify the relief, but that the procedure had not been followed.

“The High Court also is recognizing that it is only a defendant's action, defendant's representative suit. Then in the final operative part converts it into both plaintiff as well as defendant. I'm not saying that the court doesn't have the power to do so. It may have the power to do so, I think in my reading it does, but then there's a process to be followed”, he said.

Divan submitted that if any suit was to be treated as a representative suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, it ought to have been done only after placing Suit No. 17 along with the other suits, hearing all the plaintiffs, and determining which suit should be treated as the representative one.

“The process would certainly involve specifically putting Suit no. 17 along with the others, hearing all those plaintiffs and then coming up with a solution as to which would be the appropriate case to make it, to make it Order 1 Rule 8 on the plaintiff side, and again, of course, on the the defendant side”, Divan said.

Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, appearing for the plaintiffs in suit no.17, submitted that the petitioners should not be joining issues with them on this issue, when all of them are litigating for the same cause. He further submitted that the High Court had given an opportunity to all plaintiffs to respond to the application. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu also appeared along with Krishna Kumar.

The hearing will continue next Monday.

Case no. – Diary No. 61169 / 2025

Case Title – Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman v. Anjuman Islamia, Committee of Shahi Masjid Idgah