3 days ago
Allahabad HC rejects plea to refer Mathura's Shahi Idgah as ‘disputed structure'
New Delhi
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday (July 3, 2025) dismissed a plea seeking that the Mathura-based Shahi Idgah mosque be referred to as 'disputed structure' in all future proceedings.
A Bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra dismissed the plea filed by advocate Mahendra Pratap Singh, who requested the court to direct the stenographer concerned to use the word 'disputed structure' in place of 'Shahi Idgah Mosque' in all further proceedings of this original suit, and other related cases.
Objecting to the plea, counsel representing the mosque submitted that by moving this application, the plaintiff was trying to introduce a new case through the backdoor and negate the admitted fact that 'Shahi Masjid Idgah' was a mosque.
While dismissing the plea, Justice Mishra said, 'In 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 stenographer, as prayed by the applicants, to refer Shahi Masjid Idgah in judgments and orders as 'disputed structure'.'
The Allahabad High Court was presently hearing a total of 18 suits, clubbed together in 2023, that seek the removal of Shahi Idgah, which they claimed was an encroachment in the premises of Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura, known as the birthplace of Hindu god Krishna. The plea alleged that Mughal emperor Aurangzeb demolished the Krishna temple and constructed the mosque over it.
The High Court, in December 2023, allowed a plea seeking the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the mosque; this decision was stayed by the Supreme Court in January, 2024.
It was in 1968 when a the committee of Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and management of Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah decided to allow both places of worship to operate simultaneously. The petitioners, later, challenged the validity of this agreement, terming it invalid by law.
