Jahanvi Agarwal
On 5th January 2024, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition challenging an Allahabad High Court decision that dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking recognition of Mathura’s Shahi Eidgah Mosque site as Krishna Janmabhoomi and the mosque’s removal.
The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta clarified that the petitioner could file a separate petition challenging the validity of any legislation. Advocate Mahek Maheshwari filed the special leave petition after the Allahabad High Court rejected the PIL in October.
Maheshwari sought the acknowledgment of the disputed site as the actual birthplace of Hindu God Krishna, advocating for the land to be handed over to Hindus to establish a trust for Krishna Janmabhoomi Janmasthan. The petitioner challenged the historical narrative, claiming the site predates Islam, and questioned the legality of compromises made in the past regarding the disputed land.
During the hearing, Justice Khanna noted that the PIL was unnecessary due to pending civil suits on the same issue. The counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the high court’s dismissal based on pending suits.
Justice Khanna responded, “Let’s not have multiplicity of litigation. You filed it as a PIL, which is why it was rejected. File it otherwise; we will see.” When asked if the petitioner could file a separate petition, Justice Khanna affirmed, “Yes yes. It has been made very clear. Not as a PIL.”
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, stating, “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment…the dismissal of the special leave petition nowhere comments on the right of parties to challenge the vires of any enactment or prevents or bars any party from challenging the vires of any enactment.”
The Allahabad High Court had rejected Maheshwari’s petition, stating that the issues raised were under consideration in pending suits. The petitioner challenged this in the Supreme Court, arguing that the high court overlooked critical facts and failed to delve into the case’s merits. Maheshwari contended that the PIL aimed to defend Hindus’ fundamental rights under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution and also questioned the constitutionality of sections of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
In a related development, the mosque committee approached the Supreme Court against a December 14 order of the Allahabad High Court allowing the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the mosque. The Supreme Court had previously declined to interfere with this order on December 15 when a stay order was requested at the Bar.
Case Name: Mahek Maheshwari v. Union of India & Ors.
Diary Number: 26271/2023
Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta