SHAHI EIDGAH MOSQUE

wanath Temple-gyanvapi Masjid case. In both cases, Hindu groups argue that temples were demolished by Islamic rulers to build mosques, and therefore, the land should be returned to Hindus.

Muslim groups reject the contention, saying that the 1991 Places of Worship Act — which locks the religious character of holy sites as they existed on the day of independence, with the exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-babri Masjid site — bars any such petitions. Some of these pleas are also pending before the Supreme Court.

The developments in Mathura are also part of what experts have called the new temple movements, where Hindu groups and individuals have approached lower courts to file petitions seeking legal solutions to decades-old religious disputes, instead of using street mobilisations to push for change.

The order was described as a huge boost by the Hindu petitioners, who argued that a lotusshaped pillar — a characteristic they claimed was intrinsic to Hindu temples — existed on the mosque premises, and an image of Hindu deity “Sheshnag” was also present. It was submitted that at the base of the pillar of the mosque, Hindu religious symbols and engravings were visible.

“There exists a lotus-shaped pillar which is a characteristic of Hindu temples and an image of ‘Sheshnaag’, one of the Hindu deities who protected Lord Krishna on the night of his birth, is also present there,” advocate Jain said

The Muslim petitioners – led by the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board – said that the suit was not maintainable and argued that it should be heard first, because the issue of maintainability mist be decided first before going into merit of the case. As per defendants, the suit is barred by Places of Worship Act 1991.

But the court rejected the argument.

“This court is of the view that no straitjacket formula can otherwise be adopted or followed for prioritising which application should be decided first in order. It depends upon the fact and the circumstances of the individual case,” the judge said.

“Moreover, there is no provision in the code, which directs the court to give priority to one application over the other. The proceedings for appointment of commission and rejection of plaint are entirely independent proceedings.”

Secretary of the Shahi Idgah Masjid Management Committee

{

and advocate Tanveer Ahmed told PTI that the committee will challenge the high court’s decision in the apex court. “Whatever legal process is possible will be taken against this decision,” he said.

A key aspect of the case is also the 1991 law, which barred any court from entertaining a matter that sought to alter the religious nature of a place but has proved ineffective in preventing a spate of litigation in recent months.

A batch of petitions — some seeking to scrap the 1991 Act and some others asking for tight enforcement of the same law — are pending before the top court since March 2021. The court has asked for the government’s stance in the case; last September, Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, while hearing the Gyanvapi case, observed that the religious character of a site also had to be led by evidence.

In its 30-page order, the high court said that during the execution of the survey, the sanctity of the campus should be strictly maintained and no harm or injury should be caused to the structure.

“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 representative of the plaintiffs as well as the defendant may accompany the panel of the advocates to be appointed as commission to assist them so that the correct position of the spot may be noted and be brought before the court,” the judge added.

The religious dispute simmered in the first half of the 20th century but a 1968 agreement calmed tempers. On October 12, 1968, an agreement was signed between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and the Shahi Masjid Idgah Trust, which divided the land between the two parties and relinquished any claims of the Hindu parties to the land of the mosque.

But the Hindu side’s petition challenged the settlement and alleged that the pact had no legal validity because the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust, which the petitioners claimed had the ownership and title of the land, was not party to the settlement.

“The Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan is working against the interest of the deity and devotees and fraudulently entered into a compromise with the Committee of Management of Trust Masjid Idgah (Trust) in 1968 conceding a considerable portion of property belonging to the deity and the trust,” the suit alleged.

The management committee of Shahi Eidgah mosque objected to the petition, arguing that as the compromise agreement was finalised in 1968 and the final judgement and decree the case was passed in 1974, the Hindu petition was time barred.

Since September 2020, when the first plea was filed, eight more petitions have cropped up, including one to bar Muslims from offering namaz in the mosque, another asking for a survey of the mosque premises and a third asking for security officers to be appointed to oversee the complex.

In May this year, the high court transferred to itself all the suits pending before the Mathura court in connection with the case.

U.P. JUDGE TO CJI

Barabanki, including unsettling incidents with the district judge there.

“I have no will to live anymore. I have been rendered to a Walking Corpse in the last year and a half. There is no purpose in carrying this soulless and lifeless body around anymore. There is no purpose left in my life. Kindly permit me to end my life in a dignified way,” said the letter that became public on Thursday.

According to people aware of the matter, Supreme Court’s secretary general Atul M Kurhekar, on the instructions of the CJI, wrote to the registrar general of the Allahabad high court on Thursday evening, asking for the status of the proceedings before the internal complaint committee (ICC) that is dealing with the complaint of the judge.

“The Supreme Court administration, under the direction of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, has taken the cognisance of the matter on the administrative side and has sought a report from the registrar general of the Allahabad high court. After the report is received, appropriate follow-up measures will be taken,” people cited above told HT. The woman judge could not be contacted for comments despite repeated attempts.

She filed a petition before the Supreme Court on December 4, which came up for hearing on Wednesday before a bench led by justice Hrishikesh Roy. During the proceedings on Wednesday, the bench said that it does not need to issue any judicial order for the time being because an ICC was already seized of the woman judge’s complaint. The bench had observed that the ICC was constituted on the woman judge’s complaint and therefore, she should wait.

“Since the Internal Complaints Committee is already in session of the matter and a resolution is already passed which is pending approval of the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed,” the order on Wednesday recorded.

The woman judge, in the letter made public on Thursday, said that her case was dismissed by the Supreme Court after eight seconds of hearing.

She said in the letter that the district judge in question had asked her to meet him at night. Though a complaint had been given to the Allahabad high court chief justice and the administrative judge in 2022, no action was taken till date, she contended. Later, she filed a complaint with the internal complaints committee of the high court in July 2023.

“It took six months and a thousand emails just to start an enquiry. The proposed enquiry is also a farce and a sham. The witnesses in the enquiry are immediate subordinates of the district judge. How the committee expects the witnesses to depose against their boss is beyond my understanding,” she said in the letter.

Her letter further said that she had asked for the transfer of the district judge during the pendency of the inquiry so that a fair examination of facts would be possible, but her plea was turned down.

In the letter, she also indicated that she had attempted suicide in the past.

A grievance regarding a complaint against a judge can be taken up for inquiry by the concerned high court or the Supreme Court as per the in-house procedure. As per the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, grievances against judicial officers are required to be sent on sworn affidavit with verifiable facts to the registrar general of the concerned high court. Based on the charges in the affidavit, the high court administration, under the directions of its chief justice and the administrative judge, orders an inquiry.