Allahabad High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Recognition Of Mathura's Shahi Idgah Mosque Site As Krishna Janmabhoomi

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday (11 October) rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking recognition of Mathura's Shahi Idgah Mosque site as Krishna Janmabhoomi. The High Court had reserved its verdict on 4 September.

During the hearing before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, petitioner Advocate Mehek Maheshwari argued that historical records indicated that the disputed Shahi Idgah mosque site is the actual birthplace of Lord Krishna.

He asserted that Mathura's history dates back to the Ramayana era, predating Islam by 1,500 years, according to IANS.

Maheshwari contended that the Shahi Idgah was not a proper mosque under Islamic jurisprudence, as a mosque cannot be built on forcibly acquired land. However, according to Hindu jurisprudence, it is considered a temple, as even the ruins of a temple can constitute a sacred site.

Regarding the Places of Worship Act, 1991, Maheshwari argued that since the land had always been considered temple land, there was no question of changing its nature. He referred to the Madras High Court's judgment in the TRK Ramaswami Servai vs. the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments.

Maheshwari emphasised that during a settlement, 2.37 acres out of 13.37 acres of land were allocated to the Shahi Idgah Mosque, suggesting that it was originally a temple, even if a mosque was later built on it.

The PIL, initially dismissed in default on 19 January 2021, due to the petitioner's absence, was later restored to its original status.

In his petition, Maheshwari argued that the mosque is not an essential part of Islam, and therefore, the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura should be demolished.

Maheshwari urged the court to hand over the land, allegedly Krishna Janmabhoomi, to the Hindus. He also requested the court to declare Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 as unconstitutional, claiming that these provisions violate the doctrine of Hindu law stating that temple property is never lost, even if enjoyed by strangers for years. Additionally, he proposed the formation of a proper trust for Krishna Janmabhoomi to build a temple on the disputed land.