Supreme Court extends stay on court-monitored survey of Shahi Idgah mosque complex in Mathura
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday extended its stay on the Allahabad High Court's order that permitted a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah mosque complex in Mathura.
The complex is located adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple, a site of significant religious importance for Hindus.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan said it will defer the hearing on the plea of the ‘Committee of Management of Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah’ against the court-monitored survey of the mosque complex in the week commencing April 1.
The CJI said there were three issues pending now with the apex court and they are “the issue of an intra-court appeal (against consolidation of lawsuits filed by the Hindu litigants), the other one is the Act (challenge to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991) itself. List in the week commencing April 1.”
The bench said in the meanwhile the interim order of the Allahabad High Court staying the court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah mosque complex will continue to operate.
The top court, on January 16 last year, had first stayed the operation of the December 14, 2023 order of the high court.
The high court had allowed a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah mosque complex and agreed to the appointment of a court commissioner to oversee it.
The Hindu side claims the premises hold signs suggesting that a temple once existed at the site.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the Hindu parties, had said the appeal of the mosque committee was filed against the December 14, 2023 order of the high court and connected orders in the matter had become infructuous.
"All these petitions have become infructuous as the high court has pronounced its order later," he said.
Jain referred to the subsequent order of the high court by which it rejected a plea of the Muslim parties challenging the maintainability of 18 cases related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute in Mathura, and ruled that the religious character of the mosque needs to be determined.
The high court had dismissed the Muslim side's contention that the suits filed by the Hindu litigants relating to the dispute over the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple and the adjacent mosque violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 and therefore were not maintainable.
The 1991 Act prohibits changing the religious character of any shrine from what existed on the day of the country's Independence. It exempted only the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute from its purview.
In Mathura, a suit was filed in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division (III) for shifting the Shahi Idgah mosque, claiming that it was constructed on a part of the 13.37 acre land of the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust.
The Hindu side had requested the high court to conduct the original trial like it had done in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title dispute.
While allowing the plea for a court-monitored survey, the high court had said that no harm should be caused to the structure during the exercise which it indicated could be overseen by a three-member commission of advocates.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Questioning religious practices will break religion, civilisation: SC in Dawoodi Bohras case
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday remarked that if individuals start questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court then there will be hundreds of petitions questioning different rituals, leading to the breaking of religions and the civilisation.
The nine-judge Constitution bench is hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, and on the ambit and scope of the religious freedom practised by multiple faiths, including Dawoodi Bohras.
The bench comprises Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
The Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community filed a PIL in 1986 seeking the setting aside of a 1962 judgment, which had struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949 -- this law made excommunication of any community member illegal.
The 1962 Constitution bench judgment said, "It is evident from the religious faith and tenets of the Dawoodi Bohra community that the exercise of the power of excommunication by its religious head on religious grounds formed part of the management of its affairs in matters of religion and the 1949 Act in making even such excommunication invalid, infringed the right of the community under Article 26(b) of the Constitution."
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing a group of reformist Dawoodi Bohras, submitted that a practice which is conducted in response to secular and social actions of an individual cannot be the subject of Constitutional protection under Article 25 of the Constitution and consequently cannot be a ‘matter of religion’ under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Ramachandran told the court that a practice which may have a religious aspect but also significantly and adversely impacts fundamental rights is not immune to restriction under Article 25 of the Constitution or Article 26 of the Constitution.
Responding to the submission, Justice Nagarathna said that if everybody starts questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court, then "what happens to this civilisation where religion is so intimately connected with the Indian society".
"There will be hundreds of petitions questioning this right that right, opening of the temple, and the closure of the temple. We are conscious of this," she said.
Adding to the response, Justice Sundresh said, "Every religion will break and every constitutional court will have to be closed.
"If the dispute between two entities are allowed then everybody will question everything. In your case there may be a civil wrong committed to you but in another case, another member will say I don't agree. It is regressive. To what extent can we go in a country like ours which is progressive and on the move is the question," he said.
Justice Nagarathna went on that what sets apart India from any other region is that "we are a civilisation" despite having so many pluralities and diversities?
Asserting that diversity is the country's strength, she added, "One of the constants in our Indian society is the relationship of human beings -- man, woman and child -- with the religion."
"Now, how a religious practice or a matter of religion is questioned, where it is questioned, whether it can be questioned, whether it has to be a question within a denomination for a reform or whether the state will have to do or you want the court to adjudicate upon all these aspects. This is troubling us.
"What we lay down, is for a civilisation that is India. India must progress despite all its economy, everything there is a constant in us. We can’t break that constant. That is what is troubling us ," she said.
Ramachandran replied that India is a civilisation under the Constitution and therefore nothing which goes against the grain of constitution can be continued in a civilised society.
He said that's where court's task come in and "it can't throw hands" and say there will be so many petitions.
