Supreme Court Caveat Filed in Mathura Temple-Mosque Dispute

Hindu litigants have filed a caveat in the Supreme Court to ensure a hearing if the Muslim side challenges a recent Allahabad High Court order. The court rejected a plea questioning the maintainability of 18 cases related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah mosque dispute in Mathura.

Hindu litigants have proactively filed a caveat in the Supreme Court to ensure that they get a hearing should the Muslim side challenge a recent order by the Allahabad High Court. This follows the court's rejection of a plea that questioned the maintainability of 18 cases concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah mosque dispute in Mathura.

The caveat, filed through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, aims to prevent an ex-parte order against the Hindu litigants if the matter reaches the apex court. A caveat ensures that no adverse decision is made without hearing the concerned party.

In a significant ruling on August 1, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Muslim side's argument that these suits violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991, which prohibits changing a shrine's religious character as it existed on the day of Independence. The Act, however, does not cover the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.

The Hindu litigants claim that the Aurangzeb-era mosque in question was constructed after demolishing a Hindu temple. They argue that the structure still exhibits elements of its past as a temple.

This legal battle in Mathura parallels a similar case in Varanasi concerning the Gyanvapi mosque and Kashi Vishwanath temple, where Hindu and Muslim communities contest the site's religious character.