NEW DELHI: The Allahabad High Court’s recent decision to dismiss objections raised by Muslim parties in the Mathura’s Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute marks a significant setback for the Muslim community. The ruling paves the way for the case to proceed to trial, where Hindu plaintiffs seek the removal of the centuries-old mosque, claiming it was built on the birthplace of Lord Krishna.
Dismissing objections raised by the Shahi Idgah Masjid’s committee and UP Sunni Waqf Board, Justice Mayank Kumar Jain on Thursday ruled that the suits filed by Hindu plaintiffs seeking the removal of the mosque are maintainable. The case has been embroiled in legal battles for years. While a lower court had initially dismissed the suit, citing a law protecting places of worship, a higher court later reversed the decision. The dispute has also seen the High Court allow, and later stay, an inspection of the mosque.
The Core of the Dispute
At the heart of the controversy lies the Shahi Idgah Masjid, a 400-year-old mosque adjacent to the alleged birthplace of Lord Krishna. Hindu groups contend that the mosque was constructed on land originally belonging to a Hindu temple and seek its removal. In contrast, the Muslim side, represented by the mosque management committee and the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, vehemently denies these claims, asserting the mosque’s historical and religious significance.
The Muslim Side’s Stance
The Muslim defendants mounted a robust legal challenge against the maintainability of the Hindu suits. Their primary arguments centered on several key legal points:
The Places of Worship Act
The cornerstone of the Muslim defense was the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This law mandates the preservation of the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. The Muslim side argued that the Shahi Idgah Masjid had continuously functioned as a mosque since its construction, and any attempt to alter its religious character would violate this Act.
Limitation Period
Another crucial argument was the issue of limitation. The Muslim defendants contended that the Hindu plaintiffs had unreasonably delayed in filing their suits, exceeding the prescribed limitation period. They argued that the plaintiffs were aware of the alleged encroachment on the disputed site for decades but failed to take timely legal action.
Waqf Property and Jurisdiction
The Muslim side emphasized the waqf nature of the Shahi Idgah Masjid, asserting that only the Waqf Tribunal has jurisdiction over disputes related to waqf properties. They contended that the civil court was not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the matter.
The 1968 Compromise
The Muslim defendants also highlighted a 1968 compromise decree that settled a previous dispute related to the site. They argued that this decree barred any subsequent challenges to the mosque’s existence and that the current suits were an attempt to circumvent this legal settlement.
Procedural Issues
Additionally, the Muslim side raised procedural objections, claiming that the Hindu plaintiffs had failed to adhere to specific legal requirements in their suits. They argued that the suits lacked clarity and were not maintainable under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act.
The Court’s Decision
Despite the cogent arguments presented by the Muslim side, the Allahabad High Court rejected all objections. The court ruled that determining the religious character of the disputed site was a complex issue requiring a full trial. The limitation argument was also dismissed, as the court deemed it premature to decide without examining the evidence.
Regarding the waqf nature of the property, the court found insufficient evidence to establish it at this stage. The 1968 compromise was deemed irrelevant to the current plaintiffs, who were not parties to the earlier proceedings.
The court’s decision to allow the case to proceed to trial is a significant blow to the Muslim community. It sets the stage for a protracted legal battle with potentially far-reaching consequences.
Implications and Concerns
The Mathura case has drawn parallels to the Ayodhya dispute, raising concerns about the potential for communal tensions. While the Places of Worship Act provides a legal framework for protecting religious places, the present case challenges its interpretation and application.
The Muslim community fears that the outcome of this case could set a dangerous precedent, emboldening similar claims against other places of worship.