Plea against combining multiple lawsuits in Mathura temple-mosque dispute may be raised later: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday stated that a petition challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision to consolidate 15 lawsuits related to the Mathura Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute could be raised at a later stage if necessary.
A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, after taking a prima facie view, expressed support for the high court’s order, observing that the consolidation of lawsuits serves the interests of both parties involved in the litigation. The bench emphasized that combining the cases avoids multiple legal proceedings and potential redundancies.
The controversy dates back to January 11, 2022, when the Allahabad High Court, acting on an application filed by a Hindu plaintiff, directed that 15 related suits be consolidated in the “interest of justice.” The High Court’s order was aimed at streamlining the judicial process and preventing contradictory rulings on the matter.
During Friday’s proceedings, the Supreme Court bench remarked that it was currently handling issues related to the 1991 Places of Worship Act and questioned the necessity of intervening in the consolidation matter at this juncture. Chief Justice Khanna advised the counsel for the mosque committee, the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Idgah, to revisit their plea later if the need arises.
“If required, you can raise the plea later,” the Chief Justice told the mosque committee’s lawyer. The bench adjourned the matter to the week beginning April 1, offering time for reconsideration. The court reiterated that the consolidation of lawsuits does not adversely impact either side and noted that it reduces the complexity of managing multiple, parallel proceedings.
The lawyer for the mosque committee argued that the lawsuits consolidated by the Allahabad High Court were not similar and that combining them might lead to complications. The lawyer asserted that each suit involved distinct facts and circumstances and should therefore be adjudicated separately.
In response, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of potential complications, emphasizing that consolidation benefits all parties by streamlining the litigation process. “No complications at all. It is in your benefit and their benefit also, as multiple proceedings are being avoided,” the bench remarked. The court further questioned why it should interfere with the high court’s consolidation order when the process ultimately served to simplify the matter.
The issue gained further significance in light of the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated December 12, 2022, which restrained courts across the country from entertaining new lawsuits or issuing interim or final orders in pending cases related to reclaiming religious places, particularly mosques, and dargahs. This directive was intended to maintain judicial consistency and avoid a proliferation of religious disputes in courts.
The bench, addressing the counsel for the mosque committee, pointed out that consolidation does not fundamentally alter the course of the litigation. “What difference does it make if it is consolidated? Anyway, think about it, we are adjourning it, but I think consolidation makes no difference at all,” Chief Justice Khanna remarked. The bench then deferred the hearing, scheduling it for the week starting April 1.
The Mathura Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid case has been a contentious issue, with multiple lawsuits filed by different parties seeking ownership and rights over the disputed site. The Allahabad High Court’s consolidation order aimed to reduce judicial delays and ensure a coherent resolution of the overlapping claims.
The Supreme Court’s cautious approach reflects its intent to balance judicial efficiency with the rights of all stakeholders. By deferring intervention on the consolidation matter, the court seeks to address broader issues surrounding religious disputes under the framework of the 1991 Places of Worship Act while allowing for procedural clarity in individual cases. The eventual resolution of this dispute will likely have significant legal and social implications.
