Allahabad High Court Rejects Hindu Side’s Plea to Replace Term “Shahi Idgah Mosque” with “Disputed Structure” in Krishna Janmabhoomi Case
By Rajesh Pandey
On Friday, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea filed by the Hindu side in the Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah title dispute, wherein a request was made to replace the term “Shahi Idgah Mosque” with “disputed structure” in all future proceedings and records of the case.
The application, marked as Application A-44 in Original Suit No. 13 of 2023, sought a direction to the court stenographer to use the term “disputed structure” in place of “Shahi Idgah Mosque” during further proceedings in the suit as well as in all connected matters.
The plea was supported by an affidavit submitted by Mahendra Pratap Singh, an advocate representing the Hindu side.
The Hindu side argued that the Shahi Idgah Mosque, located in Mathura, was constructed on the exact location believed to be the original birthplace of Lord Shri Krishna, a site of immense spiritual and historical importance for the Hindu community.
They contended that referring to the structure as a “mosque” prejudges the issue and undermines their claim that the mosque stands on sacred Hindu ground.
However, the Muslim side, which is a defendant in the case, opposed the application by filing a detailed written objection. Their counsel argued that the application was an attempt to misuse judicial procedures and create a narrative that would unfairly influence the outcome of the ongoing dispute.
They emphasized that the Shahi Idgah Mosque has stood at the location for over 400 years, and referring to it as a “disputed structure” at this early stage of the trial would amount to prematurely questioning its status as a mosque, without the benefit of a full trial and evaluation of evidence.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Ram Manohar Narain Mishra stated that based on the pleadings submitted by both parties, it is evident that the core issue in the case is the title and ownership of the land on which the Shahi Masjid Idgah stands.
The judge clarified that although the property is the subject of a dispute, both sides have referred to it as the “Shahi Masjid Idgah” in their formal pleadings.
Quoting the judgment, Justice Mishra noted:
“A bare perusal of the pleadings of the parties in the suit reveals that there is a dispute between the parties about the site where the Shahi Masjid Idgah exists. Parties have claimed their respective title over the suit property. Therefore, it may be termed as property in dispute.”
The court emphasized that the trial in the case has not yet begun, and even the issues have not been framed. At such a preliminary stage, it would be inappropriate and legally untenable to direct the court stenographer to start referring to the structure in question as a “disputed structure,” especially when the identity of the property is not in doubt.
The judge remarked that such a direction would imply a pre-judgment of the nature and status of the property, which is contrary to principles of fair trial and natural justice.
“In the pleadings of the parties also, the structure in question is referred as Shahi Masjid Idgah, and at this stage, where hearing of the suits is yet to commence and even issues have not been framed, it is neither desirable nor expedient to issue any direction to the stenographer, as prayed by the applicants…
The prayer made in the application A-44 cannot be granted at this stage,” the court ruled.
