Allahabad HC demands report from Mathura court about delay in hearings about mosque survey

Krishna Janmabhoomi case

In fresh developments in the Krishna Janmabhoomi case, the Allahabad High Court has sought a report from the Mathura District Court as to why there was a delay in conducting hearings pertaining to the survey of the Shahi Idgah mosque. According to Nav Bharat Times this report needs to be submitted by August 2.

Last week, it was decided that the court of a civil judge (senior division) in Mathura, will conduct day-to-day hearings in the matter pertaining to the maintainability of the suit filed to demand the removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque that is located next to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple complex, and the return of the mosque land to the temple trust. But this would mean that the hearings pertaining to the survey would have to be put on hold until then.

Readers would recall that on July 18, the Allahabad High Court had disposed of a petition to conduct a scientific investigation of the Shahi Idgah and Jahanara’s Mosque, by directing a Mathura court to decide on the plea, preferably within three months. That matter pertained to the petition filed before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, where the plaintiff is Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman (the deity) and the defendant is the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board. The petitioner had previously, on April 14, 2021 moved the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mathura, under section 45 of the Evidence Act and the Provisions of Rule 10-A of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure for conducting Scientific Investigation of Shahi Eidgah and Jahanara’s Mosque in Civil Suit No. 151 of 2021 (Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and others) within a stipulated time period.

The respondent i.e the Waqf Board, had also moved another application before the same lower court on July 16, 2022, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. According to Order 7 Rule 11, no petition can be entertained against the matter that is already protected by an existing law. In this case, the Waqf Board contends that the Shahi Idgah falls under the purview of the Places of Worship Act that disallows changing the character of a place of worship from what it was in 1947.

Therefore, the lower court first decided to hear the matter pertaining to the maintainability of the suit itself first, and daily hearings began in the lower court today.

But the Allahabad HC also heard petitioner Manish Yadav’s submission today, that the lower court wasn’t going to conduct hearings with respect to the survey, until the matter of maintainability was settled. According to Nav Bharat Times, the High Court asked why there was a delay in conducting hearings pertaining to the survey and asked the lower court to submit a report by August 2.

It is noteworthy that the primary petition, i.e the one moved by Ranjana Agnihotri as next friend of the deity seeking removal of the mosque and return of the land, had been dismissed by a lower court in September 2020, but restored by the district court in May 2022. Therefore, petitioners who are demanding a scientific investigation and survey of the mosque i.e Manish Yadav, and advocates Mahendra Pratap Singh and Rajendra Maheshwari, contended that the matter pertaining to the maintainability had already been addressed. Singh and Maheshwari are considering a revision petition.

Manish Yadav’s petition

On May 13, 2022, Manish Yadav moved the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mathura demanding that an Advocate Commissioner be appointed to carry out an inspection of the Shahi Idgah. He claims to be a descendant of Lord Krishna, and had previously demanded that the mosque be shifted. He had moved Allahabad High Court citing delay in hearing of his plea by the lower court. Yadav also submitted a copy of the Allahabad High Court order dated May 12 that directed the lower court to decide within four months the matter pertaining to the injunction application as well as bunching together the trial in all pending cases related to the dispute.

At present, nearly a dozen related petitions are being heard by the Mathura Civil Court. Petitioners, apart from the deity (represented by next friend Ranjana Agnihotri), Manish Yadav, and advocates Mahendra Pratap Singh and Rajendra Maheshwari, include Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha national treasurer Dinesh Sharma, Jitendra Singh Visen of the Vishwa Vaidik Sanatan Sangh (VVSS), Anil Kumar Tripathi, Pawan Kumar Shastri, Gopal Giri and Pankaj Singh. It is noteworthy that VVSS is also a petitioner in the Gyanvapi case that is being heard by a fast-track court in Varanasi. VVSS has demanded that Muslims be prohibited from entering the Gyanvapi complex, and that the entire Gyanvapi mosque premises be returned to Hindus.