Allahabad HC Okays Survey of Mathura Mosque

Hyderabad/Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court on Thursday, in a key decision on the temple-mosque dispute in Mathura, allowed a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah, which is adjoining the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple.

The court agreed to the appointment of an advocate commissioner to oversee the survey of the mosque premises, which, the petitioners claim, holds signs suggesting that it was previously a Hindu temple.

Justice Mayank Kumar Jain said the modalities of the survey would be discussed at the next hearing on December 18.

The High Court decision elicited a sharp response from AIMIM president and Hyderabad Lok Sabha member Asaduddin Owaisi, who said the decision to allow the survey would “embolden Sangh Parivar's mischiefs,” adding that “robbing Muslims of their dignity is the only goal now.”

Owaisi, in his reaction to X, said the Mathura dispute was settled decades ago by mutual consent between the Masjid Committee and the temple's trust, but a new group was raking up the dispute.

“Whether it is Kashi, Mathura, or Lucknow's Tiley Wali Masjid, it's the same group. Despite the Places of Worship Act being the law and in force, this group has made a mockery of the law and the judicial process. The Supreme Court was supposed to hear this matter on January 9, so what was the hurry that a survey had to be ordered?” Owaisi said in his post.

The order on the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah issue is the second temple-mosque dispute in which the high court has given its nod to a survey, over the past few months.

Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) recently completed a survey of the Gyanvapi mosque, next to Varanasi's Kashi Vishwanath temple, but has sought more time from a local court to submit its report.

While arguing their case for a survey, the Mathura petitioners cited the Varanasi case as well.

Justice Jain said no harm should be caused to the Mathura structure during the survey, which, he indicated, could be overseen by a three-member commission of advocates.

“The commission is duty bound to submit its fair and impartial report on the basis of the actual status of the property. The commission may also submit its discovery as to the existence of particular signs at the property as referred by the plaintiffs,” the high court observed.

“It said the representatives of both sides to the dispute can accompany the commission members and assist them so that the correct position of the spot may be noted and be brought before the court,” the judge said.

The court said the sanctity of the premises has to be strictly maintained during the survey.

The application submitted to the High Court by the petitioners claimed the presence of a “lotus-shaped pillar”, which is characteristic of Hindu temples, and an image of the Sheshnag deity on the premises.

It was also submitted that Hindu religious symbols and engravings were visible at the base of the pillar. The petition claimed that Lord Krishna's birthplace lay beneath the mosque.

The petition was filed on behalf of the deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman and seven others through advocates Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Prabhash Pandey, and Devki Nandan.

The applicants had sought the appointment of a commission with specific directions to submit its report within a stipulated time. The petition also sought directions from the court to photograph and record the entire proceedings on video.

The plea was opposed by the UP Sunni Central Wakf Board and the mosque committee, who argued that no order on the application should be passed at this stage, as their objection to the maintainability of the suit was still pending.

Among the laws invoked by the Muslim side was the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

The judge observed that the defendants have the opportunity to file their objections against the survey commission's report if they feel aggrieved by it. The report filed by the commissioner is always subject to evidence of the parties, and is admissible in evidence, the judge said.

“The commissioners are competent witnesses and they may be called for evidence during the trial, if desired by any party, to the suit. The other party will always have an opportunity to cross-examine them,” the court said.

“It is also to be kept in mind that by the appointment of a panel of three advocates as commission, either party would not suffer any harm or injury. The commissioner report does not affect the merits of the case,” it added.

In May, the high court transferred to itself all cases related to the Mathura dispute. On November 16, Justice Jain had reserved the order on the Hindu side’s petition, seeking a survey of the Shahi Idgah premises.