PRAYAGRAJ — The Allahabad High Court on Friday adjourned the hearing in the long-running Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Eidgah dispute, citing ongoing related proceedings before the Supreme Court. The bench heard submissions in 18 petitions filed by Hindu claimants, but did not proceed with arguments on the merit of the case.
The court instructed all parties to file their responses. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) requested additional time to submit its reply, a request the court accepted. The next hearing is scheduled for February 20.
A senior lawyer representing the Muslim side said the adjournment was essential to avoid conflicting proceedings. “When the apex court is already handling related issues, parallel arguments serve no public good,” he told the court. Another counsel emphasized, “The law is clear. The status of religious places as on August 15, 1947, must be respected.”
The petitions filed by Hindu groups seek the transfer of the entire land to a temple trust and the removal of what they describe as encroachments. They also challenge a 1968 agreement between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and the Shahi Eidgah Committee, which divided the land between the two entities.
Muslim representatives argue that the 1968 agreement is valid and binding. A member of the Shahi Eidgah Committee said outside the court, “This understanding was reached to maintain peace in Mathura. It has been in place for decades and should not be disturbed at the expense of social harmony.”
They also rely on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which bars changing the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. “Parliament enacted this law to prevent exactly this kind of repeated litigation,” said a Muslim advocate. “The mosque is old, the agreement is lawful, and the Act protects the site.”
The dispute concerns the Katra Keshav Dev area in Mathura, with Hindu groups claiming that a temple existed there before it was destroyed during Mughal rule. However, Muslim historians and community leaders reject these interpretations of history, cautioning against turning religious claims into legal battles. “History cannot be rewritten through petitions,” said a local academic. “Courts must protect constitutional values.”
Lower courts had earlier dismissed the initial pleas. The High Court subsequently transferred all 18 cases to itself and permitted an ASI survey in 2023. Some petitions were rejected during subsequent hearings, including one seeking to label the mosque a “disputed structure.”
Community leaders have called for restraint. “We want a lawful, peaceful resolution,” said a Mathura-based Muslim cleric. “This place symbolises shared living. Courts should safeguard that spirit.”
With responses now awaited and Supreme Court proceedings still ongoing, the High Court’s next hearing is expected to draw significant attention.
