Krishna Janmabhoomi Case | Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With High Court's Dismissal Of PIL Seeking Removal Of Mosque

The Supreme Court on Friday (January 5) refused to entertain a plea against an Allahabad High Court order dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) for the recognition of Mathura's Shahi Eidgah Mosque site as Krishna Janmabhoomi and the removal of the mosque. However, it was clarified that the petitioner could move a separate petition challenging the vires of any legislation.A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta was hearing a special leave petition filed by Advocate Mahek Maheshwari, following the dismissal of the PIL by the Allahabad High Court last October. Advocate Mahek Maheshwari, the petitioner, had sought the recognition of the disputed site as the actual birthplace of Hindu God Krishna and urged for the land to be handed over to Hindus for the establishment of a trust for Krishna Janmabhoomi Janmasthan. Through the PIL, a challenge was mounted against the historical narrative, with the petitioner claiming that the site predated Islam and questioning the legality of the compromises made with respect to the disputed land in the past.Right at the outset of the hearing today, Justice Khanna told the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the PIL was not required since several civil suits on the same issue are pending.In response, the counsel complained that the high court had only dismissed Maheshwari's petition on grounds that other suits were pending. "The high court has dismissed it on grounds that suit is pending by somebody else. I don't know what suit is about.""Let's not have multiplicity of litigation. You filed it as a PIL, which is why it was rejected. File it as otherwise, we will see," Justice Khanna said.When requested to clarify that the petitioner was at liberty to file a separate petition, Justice Khanna said, "It has been clarified in the impugned judgment.""Can I file it as a separate petition?" the counsel asked again. "Yes yes. It has been made very clear. Not as a PIL," Justice Khanna repeated, before pronouncing -"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence the special leave petition is dismissed. We clarify that the dismissal of the special leave petition nowhere comments on the right of parties to challenge the vires of any enactment or prevents or bars any party from challenging the vires of any enactment."The Allahabad High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava had rejected Maheshwari's petition on grounds that the issues raised were already under consideration in pending suits. The lawyer challenged this order in the Supreme Court, asserting that the high court's dismissal overlooked critical facts and failed to delve into the merits of the case. The petitioner contends that the PIL was in the public interest, defending the fundamental rights of Hindus under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution.The petition not only assailed the high court's verdict but also questioned the constitutionality of sections of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Notably, Maheshwari sought a court-monitored GPRS-based excavation by the Archaeological Survey of India of the disputed structure and as a interim measure, asked for directions to allow Hindus to conduct prayers at Shahi Idgah Mosque, Mathura on a specific day of the week, preferably Thursday, and on the festive occasion of Krishna Janmastami. In related news, the mosque committee has approached the Supreme Court against a December 14 order of the Allahabad High Court by which it had allowed an application for the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the mosque. Earlier, on December 15 last year, the top court had refused to interfere with this order when an oral request was made at the Bar to grant a stay order.BackgroundThe controversy is related to Mughal emperor Aurangazeb-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 doubted 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 a right to worship at the disputed site, many of them have sought the Shahi Eidgah mosque's removal.In May, the Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all the suits pending before the Mathura court praying for various reliefs pertaining to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, allowing the transfer application filed by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and seven others. In the operative part of its order, a single-judge bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra observed:"...Looking to the fact that as many as 10 suits are stated to be...

Krishna Janmabhoomi Case | Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With High Court's Dismissal Of PIL Seeking Removal Of Mosque

Awstika Das

Tags