In a significant development in the Mathura Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute, the Supreme Court on April 28, 2025, upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision permitting Hindu plaintiffs to implead the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Union of India in the main suits filed on behalf of the deity.
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, heading the bench, stated that the Committee of Management of the Shahi Masjid Idgah was "absolutely wrong" in challenging the High Court’s ruling. He clarified that the principles under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (amendment of pleadings) are applicable to Order I Rule 10 (addition or substitution of parties) as well.
However, the Court also noted that it would examine whether the High Court’s order was effective and consider its bearing on the Idgah committee’s pending application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint.
When the counsel for the Idgah committee argued that issues of maintainability and jurisdiction must be addressed, the CJI observed that the committee was merely "going around in circles" and should instead file its written statement in response to the amended plaint.
The bench, which also included Justice Sanjay Kumar, ordered that the matter be heard alongside Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) 20074 and 20088 of 2024, scheduled for listing on May 2, 2025.
The Shahi Idgah Trust Management Committee had approached the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court’s March 5, 2025, order, which allowed the Hindu plaintiffs to introduce new facts based on a 1920 notification declaring the Katra mound—revered as Lord Krishna’s birthplace—as a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. The plaintiffs were also permitted to implead the ASI and the Union as defendants.
The Trust has contended that the amendments permitted by the High Court drastically alter the original suit’s nature and unfairly prejudice their position. They argued that the plaintiffs were attempting to set up a “new case” by relying on the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, to circumvent the bar imposed by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
Further, the Trust pointed out that the High Court allowed the amendment even though SLPs regarding the maintainability of the original suits were already pending before the Supreme Court, creating procedural complexities and the risk of irreparable harm.
Earlier, while passing the order, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad High Court had held that procedural lapses should not defeat the cause of substantive justice. Although the plaintiffs cited the wrong provision—Order VI Rule 17 CPC instead of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC—the Court emphasized that the objective of effective adjudication justified the amendments. A cost of ₹5,000 was imposed on the plaintiffs, to be paid to the defendants, and directions were issued for amending the plaint and filing additional written statements.
Case Title: Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah v. Devta Bhagwan Shri Krishna Lala Virajman Next Friend and Others