Post Gyanvapi survey, pleas flood Mathura courts
The applications seek appointment of advocate commissioner to prepare survey report, photography and videography within Shahi Eidgah Mosque, sealing of mosque premises, enhancement of security
AGRA : With the legal proceedings in Varanasi’s Gyanvapi Mosque Complex case hitting the headlines this month, a plethora of applications has been filed in the Mathura courts hearing the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi case.
Most of these applications have been filed in pending cases wherein hearing has been fixed in July.
These applications are being filed in about a dozen cases related to Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi. The first case was filed on september25, 2020 but dismissed on September 30, 2020. It was restored recently on May 19 this year.
The applications contain various pleas, including appointment of advocate commissioner to prepare survey report, photography and videography within Shahi Eidgah Mosque, sealing of mosque premises, enhancement of security, purification of mosque premises (claimed as original birth place of Lord Krishna) by Gangajal, injunction seeking restraint on movement within mosque complex and offering water to Laddoo Gopal in Shahi Eidgah mosque premises etc.
Most of these petitioners claim that the actual birthplace of Lord Krishna (Garbh Grah) is within the walls of the presentday structure of Shahi Eidgah
Mosque and there are marks and symbols, proving that it was a Hindu temple in the past.
According to the petitioners, there are material evidences which Muslim parties might damage, remove or conceal, hence the applications. However, most of the petitioners have failed to impress the court and all these applications are to be taken up in July with maximum listed for July 1, when the court opens after a month-long summer vacation.
Tanveer Ahmad, secretary and counsel of the management committee of Shahi Eidgah Mosque himself has lost the count of the applications moved in May in about a dozen cases pending before the Mathura courts.
“No day passes when an application is not moved in the court of civil judge (senior division) Mathura or any other court by Hindu petitioners on grounds often repetitive in nature. July 1 or other dates in the same month have been fixed in almost all cases,” he said.
“These applications are filed on days when date is not fixed in the case and copies are not being provided to us as required. We come to know the next date fixed in the case from newspapers. No orders are being passed because these applications are baseless and moved with no purpose. They merely add to the confusion,” said Ahmad.
“It may be because of publicity, as these applications are first provided to the media,”” said the rather baffled secretary and lawyer for management committee, Shahi Eidgah Mosque.
The man currently under the spotlight is Mahendra Pratap Singh, petitioner and counsel in case no. 950 of 2020, one of the earliest cases filed in December 2020. Singh had begun filing applications on various grounds, seeking advocate commissioner survey, videography and photography, sealing of Shahi Eidgah Mosque and other prayers since February 22 this year but none was disposed of and hearing for all was fixed for July 1.
Mahendra Pratap Singh, the best connected petitioner with the media, admitted that about 8 to 10 of his applications were pending in case no. 950 of 2020.
On February 22, through an application, Mahendra Pratap Singh sought disposal of applications, including one seeking appointment of a four-member expert commission to visit the Shahi Eidgah (mosque) and apprise the court about the details.
“We have sought disposal of these applications because those managing the Shahi Eidgah Mosque have become alert after ‘Shivlinga’ being found in Gyanvapi. In Shahi Eidgah Mosque also, lotus, ‘Swastick’ and Om symbols exist and authorities and staff of the mosque can remove them, changing the character of the property,” he said.
Interestingly, Rajendra Maheshwari, Sushant Gaur and Jai Bhagwan Goyal are also petitioners in this case besides Mahendra Pratap Singh but denied media exposure as the case was ‘hijacked’ by the latter. So, these three decided to file another application on May 23 this year for survey of Eidgah Mosque premises before the courts go for summer vacation. But the application met same fate i.e. to be disposed of on July 1. Most of the applications flooding the Mathura courts have come this month, with one being almost every day in the past 10 days.
On May 9, Mahendra Pratap Singh ( case no. 950 of 2020) moved an application seeking appointment of advocate commissioner for survey of adjoining Shahi Eidgah mosque on the pattern of Gyanvapi complex in Varanasi.
The application mentioned an order passed by a Varanasi court in the Gyanvapi mosqueShringar Gauri temple case, wherein an advocate commissioner was appointed to conduct survey in the Kashi Vishwanath temple premises and the adjoining Gyanvapi mosque complex. Date, like in other cases, was already fixed on July 1.
One Manish Yadav had moved two applications before the Allahabad high court on May 12. They included a temporary injunction (TI) application, as well as one for joining the trial of all the pending cases related to the Shri Krishna JanmabhoomiShahi Idgah Masjid dispute. The HC directed the lower court in Mathura to decide the applications within four months.
On May 17, Shailendra Singh, a lawyer from Lucknow filed a fresh petition before the court of district judge, Mathura seeking permission to file suit in representative capacity and to restrain the Muslim community from offering prayers at Eidgah next to Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi.
“Since the structure has been constructed on the remains of a Hindu temple, it is akin to a temple and does not qualify the merits of a mosque,” he said. Singh maintained that the mosque did not fulfil the pre-condition laid out in the Quran, which says a mosque should be built on an undisputed land having no mark of any other religion.
Other petitioners include lawyers from Delhi and Lucknow, besides six women law students from Lucknow and Dehradun University. The district judge was on leave and will hear this application on May 25.
On May 17, an application seeking to seal the Shahi Eidgah mosque and appoint security officer to safeguard evidences related to Hindu religion allegedly present on the premises was moved in the court of civil judge (senior division) in Mathura.
“We had sought to seal the original ‘garbh grah’ where Lord Krishna was born (currently known as Shahi Eidgah) and this can be done by prohibiting movement on its premises, besides appointing a security officer to ensure that no changes are made in Shahi Eidgah mosque for which directions can be issued to district magistrate and SSP (Mathura) and commandant, Central Reserve police Force (CRPF), taking care of security of Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi premises,” informed Singh.
On May 18, an application was moved in the court of civil judge (senior division) in Mathura, seeking permission to conduct ‘Jalabhishek’ (offering of water) and offer prayers to Laddoo Gopal (Lord Krishna as child), believed to be at a location on the premises of Shahi Eidgah Mosque. Since lawyers abstained from work, the court fixed July 1 as the next date.
The petitioner in the case is treasurer of Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, a right wing organization. The application was moved in case no. 174 of 2021 Thakur Keshav Dev Ji Maharaj versus UP Sunni Central Waqf Board.
On May 19, an application was moved in the court of civil judge (senior division) seeking survey by Archaeological Survey of India and installation of CCTV camera at Shahi Eidgah Mosque. Petitioner Manish Yadav had moved two applications seeking enhancing of security by CRPF and monitoring by additional chief secretary (home) of the security at the mosque (which shares wall with Sri Krishna Janmbhoomi). These applications, however, are to be taken up on July 1.
However, the most significant development this month was the order passed by district judge, Mathura on May 19. While allowing the revision, he held that The Places of Worship Act 1991 was not applicable in the case seeking removal of Shahi Eidgah Mosque. The court of the district judge in Mathura on Thursday allowed the revision filed by the Hindu peitioners challenging the order dated September 30,. 2020 by civil judge (senior division), dismissing the suit earlier filed on ground of not being maintainable.
Another case was filed by Gopal Giri or Gopal Baba, the disciple of Naga Baba in Mathura and July 20 was fixed for hearing. Since September 2020, 11 cases have been filed in Mathura courts in connection with the dispute but according to counsel and secretary of the management committee of the Shahi Eidgah Mosque, they have received summons in six cases which are being contested by them. The UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, Management Committee of Shahi Eidgah Mosque, Sri Krishna Janambhoomi Trust and Sri Krishna Janmsthan Seva Sansthan are parties in most of these cases. These suit are filed on behalf of the deity (Lord Krishna) seeking removal of Shahi Eidgah (mosque), adjacent the Krishna temple complex in Mathura, and transfer of 13.37-acre land to the deity.
The petitioners in the cases have challenged the settlement dated October 12, 1968 between the Sri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and Shahi Masjid Eidgah, which was part of suit no. 43 of 1967.
The petitioners have alleged that the settlement had no legal validity because the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust, having ownership and title, was not party to it and sought an order on transfer of the Eidgah mosque land to the deity.
The petitioners in about 10 such cases have alleged that the Shahi Eidgah mosque was built on the same spot where a temple was razed to the ground by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in the seventeenth century.
However, the management committee of Shahi Eidgah mosque has objected to the petitions, claiming they were filed after a long delay as the settlement was in 1968 while the judgment and decree in case no. 43 of 1967 were passed in 1974.
The management committee of the Shahi Eidgah (mosque) had challenged the maintainability of these suits and had prayed for their dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The Muslim side has challenged the maintainability of the ongoing suit on the plea based on the provision laid in the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.