New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Muslim side to check whether an appeal would lie before a division bench of Allahabad High Court against the order passed by the single-judge of the high court in a matter connected with the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura.
The single-judge had refused Muslim side’s petition challenging the maintainability of 18 cases related to the dispute.
Senior advocate Madhavi Divan and advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, represented the Hindu side, before a bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar. The counsel argued that earlier the apex court had put on hold the operation of order, appointing court commissioner for survey of the Idgah complex, and requested the court vacate this order.
The counsel, representing the Muslim side, contended that interim applications were being moved before the court in the matter. The bench said let them move applications and added, “the main issue is before us. We will see that”.
Initially, the bench seemed inclined to issue notice to the Hindu side on the appeal filed by Muslim parties against the August 1 order of the high court. However, the bench said that there are many legal issues involved in the matter, which required detailed examination, and directed that all the pending matters regarding the dispute will be taken up together.
A counsel, representing the Hindu side, opposed the filing of appeal before the apex court saying that August 1 order by the single-judge is an appealable decision and it can be appealed before the division bench of the high court. The bench agreed with his submission. “The matter requires consideration. Legal issues are there and I agree with you, despite the first feeling I stopped myself ( from issuing notice)”, said Justice Khanna.
The bench asked advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, representing the Committee of Management Trust, Shahi Masjid Idgah, to apprise it whether they can file an appeal against the August 1 order of the high court before the division bench.
“Just examine…what he is saying may be right. This issue also came up in case of foreign awards….probably it has been decided that an appeal would lie…. ”, Justice Khanna told Ahmadi, who agreed to check up on the court's query. After hearing submissions, the bench scheduled the matter for further hearing on November 4.
Law firm Karanjawala and Company is representing Rajendra Maheshwari, one of the original Hindu parties, who has filed a suit in 2020 before the Mathura court in the dispute.
On August 1, the high court rejected the plea challenging the maintainability of 18 cases related to the temple-mosque dispute in Mathura. The high court had said that the "religious character" of Shahi Idgah needs to be determined, while dismissing the Muslim side's contention that the suits filed by Hindu litigants relating to the dispute over the Shahi Idgah mosque complex adjoining the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple violated the 1991 Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, and were not maintainable.
The 1991 Act prohibits changing the religious character of any shrine from what existed on the day of the country's Independence. It exempted only the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute from its purview.
The Hindu side has sought the "removal" of the Aurangzeb-era mosque, which they claim was built after demolishing a temple that once stood there.
Read more
Kolkata Doctor Rape and Murder: SC Rejects Plea to Stop Live Streaming & Resignation of WB CM
