In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has agreed to hear a plea filed by the Muslim side in the ongoing Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah mosque dispute, after the Hindu side claimed the mosque is situated on a protected monument declared by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

The matter, which has been a source of contention for decades, is gaining fresh momentum as the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 and ASI regulations intersect to create complex constitutional and religious implications.

Background: What is the Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah Dispute?

The dispute pertains to the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura, which the Hindu side claims was built over the birthplace of Lord Krishna (Krishna Janmabhoomi). The civil suit was filed by Hindu devotees and a deity (Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman) seeking the removal of the mosque and restoration of the religious character of the land.

Initially dismissed by a civil court in 2020 due to the bar imposed by the Places of Worship Act, 1991, the suit was later revived by the Mathura District Court in 2022. Since then, multiple related suits have emerged, leading to the Allahabad High Court consolidating them for uniform adjudication.

Turning Point: Hindu Side Invokes ASI Monument Claim

In a new twist, the Hindu petitioners amended their plaint, arguing that the Shahi Idgah site was not just a place of worship but a protected ASI monument, notified in 1920 under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act.

The legal crux of their argument is that a site notified as a protected monument by the ASI cannot be used as a mosque and, therefore, the Places of Worship Act does not apply.

This amendment was allowed by the Allahabad High Court on March 5, 2025, permitting the Hindu side to include the ASI as a party to the suit.

Muslim Side’s Objection and Supreme Court Appeal

Following the High Court’s order, the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Idgah approached the Supreme Court, challenging the legality of the amendment.

The Muslim side contended that the Hindu parties were introducing a “new case” under the guise of an amendment to circumvent the Places of Worship Act. They argued that such an amendment was an attempt to negate their valid defense and alter the original nature of the dispute.

According to the Muslim appellants, “The plaintiffs are attempting to wriggle out of the defence taken by the defendant that the suit is barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991 by setting up a new case.”

Supreme Court’s Observations and Next Steps

On April 4, 2025, a Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar issued notice to the Hindu side and observed that the High Court’s decision allowing amendment appeared to be prima facie correct.

The Court said:

“You have the right to amend plaint and implead parties… That is why the impugned order appears to be correct. It’s not a new case.”

However, the apex court also flagged an important procedural lapse, stating that the High Court was not informed about a pending petition before the Supreme Court relating to the same issue.

Despite this, the Bench did not stay the High Court’s order and scheduled the matter for detailed hearing on April 8, to be clubbed with other connected cases involving the Krishna Janmabhoomi land.

Impact of the ASI Notification Claim

The Hindu side’s claim that the Shahi Idgah site was notified as a protected monument in 1920 under the then Lieutenant Governor of the United Province opens new legal dimensions:

• Section 3 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act prohibits use of protected monuments for religious purposes unless authorized.
• If proven, the ASI’s 1920 notification could *override the protections offered under the 1991 Places of Worship Act, which bars legal challenges to the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947.

This claim strikes at the very heart of the legal immunity provided to religious sites by the 1991 Act, except in the case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid, which was specifically excluded from the Act’s purview.

Status of Other Legal Proceedings in the Dispute

The Supreme Court is already hearing challenges against the Allahabad High Court’s decisions, including:

• The maintainability of 18 consolidated suits relating to Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah.
• An order that allowed transfer of cases from civil courts to the High Court.

Moreover, the top court had previously issued directions that no effective orders or surveys should be passed by any court concerning disputed religious structures until the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act is decided. This interim protection was meant to prevent further communal tensions and maintain status quo.

Constitutional and Religious Implications

This case is not just about a local property dispute—it has broader constitutional implications:

• Religious freedom vs. heritage conservation: Can a religious structure continue to function if it is part of a protected national monument?
• Limits of the Places of Worship Act: Will the Act survive scrutiny when faced with ASI protections or newer archaeological evidence?
• Judicial precedent: The outcome could set a precedent for other similar disputes across India.

The stakes are especially high as this dispute follows in the footsteps of the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi verdict and comes at a time when multiple religious site litigations are pending, including those in Varanasi (Gyanvapi mosque).

Conclusion: All Eyes on April 8 Hearing

The Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah case now stands at a crucial juncture. With the Supreme Court taking cognizance of the new ASI monument claim, the case is likely to enter deeper legal terrain, balancing religious sentiments, heritage laws, and constitutional protections.

As the matter is set to be heard on April 8, 2025, both legal experts and the public await the Court’s approach to reconciling historical facts with modern jurisprudence.

The final outcome could significantly impact the interpretation of the Places of Worship Act and influence how India navigates similar disputes in the future.

Also Read

National Law Seminar on Cyber Crime and Cyber Law by IPEM Law Academy
Legal Internship by KGM & Co
Legal Internship Opportunity by KK Law Associates