In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition that sought the removal of Mathura's Shahi Idgah Mosque. The petition, which had been previously rejected by the Allahabad High Court, faced a similar fate in the apex court.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta refused to entertain the appeal, emphasizing that it would not be appropriate for the Court to interfere in the matter due to the presence of disputed questions of fact. The Court clarified that while the PIL was dismissed, it would not bar any party from challenging the validity of any enactment.

The PIL was initially filed by advocate Mahek Maheshwari in 2020, seeking the recognition of Mathura's Shahi Idgah Mosque site as the Krishna Janmabhoomi, believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna. The petitioner also called for the removal of the mosque from the disputed land.

The petitioner based the plea on historical texts, asserting that the site in question was Krishna Janmabhoomi. The argument emphasized the historical roots of Mathura dating back to the time of the Ramayana, contrasting it with the relatively recent arrival of Islam approximately 1,500 years ago.

Legal assertions were made, contending that Shahi Idgah did not qualify as a legitimate mosque under Islamic jurisprudence, as it was allegedly constructed on land acquired through force. In contrast, Hindu jurisprudence was cited, stating that a temple retains its sacred status even if it lies in ruins.

The petitioner urged the court to transfer the land to the Hindu community and establish a legitimate trust for the Krishna Janmabhoomi Janmasthan, dedicated to constructing a temple on the contested land. Additionally, the plea requested a court-monitored excavation using GPRS technology by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at the disputed site, believed to be the Krishna Janmasthan.

The Allahabad High Court had earlier rejected the PIL, noting that similar reliefs were already under consideration in related suits. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court, which, while dismissing the PIL, maintained that parties were not barred from challenging the vires of any enactment.

Case: Mahek Maheshwari vs Union of India and Ors.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 26271/2023.

Click to read/download order.