Allahabad High Court postpones hearing to 23 May; 18 cases filed so far
PRAYAGRAJ — The legal battle over the Shahi Eidgah Masjid in Mathura continues to intensify, as a divided Hindu side debated the demand to include deity ‘Radha Rani’ as a party to the dispute during a hearing in the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday.
Appearing before the single bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, Advocate Raina N Singh, representing one faction of the Hindu plaintiffs, urged the court to make ‘Radha Rani’ a formal party in the case, citing Hindu scriptures to support his plea. However, this move was met with opposition not only from the mosque committee but also from other Hindu petitioners.
Senior advocate Ajay Pratap Singh, speaking on behalf of another faction of the Hindu side, objected to the inclusion of Radha Rani, calling it “inappropriate at this stage.” He requested additional time from the court to file a formal objection and instead urged the court to first decide on the application seeking removal of the ‘Miscus Curie’ — appointed by the court in an earlier proceeding.
“The focus should remain on the dispute surrounding the structure and land. We cannot complicate the matter with symbolic or religious sentiments at this point,” Singh told the court.
The Shahi Eidgah Mosque Committee also opposed the plea and asked for more time to file an additional counter-affidavit in cases numbers 1 and 16. Their legal team said that multiple cases concerning similar issues are pending before the Supreme Court and sought a deferral of the high court hearing until the apex court gives a ruling.
Meanwhile, in case number 13, Advocate Mahendra Pratap Singh reiterated the plea to declare the Shahi Eidgah Mosque a “disputed structure.” He filed an affidavit asserting that such terminology is essential “to ensure fairness in the judicial record.”
“There is sufficient ground to consider this structure as disputed, and doing so would bring clarity to the court proceedings,” he argued.
The high court has now fixed the next hearing for 23 May, giving all parties additional time to submit their responses.
The long-standing dispute centres on the land adjoining the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura’s Katra Keshav Dev area, which is claimed by Hindus to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna. The Shahi Eidgah Mosque, located adjacent to the temple, is alleged by the Hindu petitioners to have been constructed over 13.37 acres of what they claim is the deity’s birthplace.
So far, 18 civil suits have been filed in the Allahabad High Court, with demands ranging from the removal of the mosque to a permanent ban on Muslim entry into the complex. The plaintiffs also seek full ownership rights over the land, which they argue belongs to the deity Shri Krishna.
At the heart of the controversy is a 1968 agreement signed between the Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and the Shahi Eidgah Trust, which demarcated the boundaries and accepted peaceful co-existence. Petitioners now claim the agreement was illegal and not binding, as it was allegedly signed without proper legal standing or consent from the deity.
The matter holds high emotional and religious significance for both communities and is politically sensitive. While the Hindu parties view the case as part of a larger campaign to reclaim historical religious sites, Muslim representatives see it as an attempt to rewrite history and disturb communal harmony.
Religious scholars and political observers say the issue mirrors the earlier Babri Masjid–Ram Janmabhoomi dispute in Ayodhya, which culminated in a Supreme Court verdict in 2019. However, they caution that Mathura’s case may be more complex due to the 1968 agreement.
Meanwhile, calls from some right-wing leaders to ban Muslim entry into the premises have further fuelled tensions. Several minority rights organisations have condemned these demands as unconstitutional and provocative.
The high court has asked all parties to file their objections and counter-affidavits before 23 May, when the case will resume. Until then, both communities are watching closely as the legal drama unfolds, with implications that may extend far beyond the courtroom.
