The Mathura administration has imposed prohibitory orders under Section 144 of CrPC after some right-wing groups threatened to install an idol of Krishna inside the Shahi Idgah mosque on December 6, the anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition.
SSP Mathura Gaurav Grover said the administration had received information that some persons and outfits were making appeals on social media for such an event on December 6. No permission has been granted or will be granted for such events, the SSP told reporters.
The administration’s decision comes after an Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha leader had recently announced the group would install an idol of Krishna inside the mosque claiming that it was the actual birthplace of the diety.
The date December 6 marks the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1992. The Mahasabha’s threat to perform the ritual inside the Shahi Idgah comes at a time when the local courts are hearing a series of petitions seeking the “removal” of the 17th century mosque.
An application had been moved before a Mathura Court by Sri Krishna Janmabhumi Mukti Aandolan Samiti offering the Muslim parties (management committee of the Mosque) a larger piece of land, if they agree to demolish the shrine of the Shahi Idgah Masjid near the so-called ‘Krishna Janmabhumi’.
The application was filed through advocate Mahendra Pratap Singh before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mathura.
The plea alleged that the masjid was built by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb with the stones of the temple, after demolishing the temple.
“There are many stones in which Hindu scriptures are visible and the Mosque was built after destroying the temple on the orders of Aurangzeb.”
The temple organization has offered to the Muslim parties to settle the dispute by giving them a larger piece of land, which is larger than the one on which the masjid currently stands, if they are willing to demolish the shrine (mosque).
The application placed reliance on the November 2019 Ram Janmabhoomi judgement of the Supreme Court in which the top court had ruled in favour of the Hindu parties and asked the government to provide an alternative land to the Muslims for a mosque.
The applicant prayed that the Court should take on record the application and make it a part of the suit which was earlier filed last year for the removal of the mosque.
Last year, a suit was filed on September 25, 2020 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Mathura on behalf of child deity Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman.
The suit, filed through next friend of the deity advocate Ranjana Agnihotri and six other plaintiffs, prayed for the removal of the Shahi Idgah Masjid adjacent to the Shri Krishna Temple Complex at Mathura.
The suit alleged that Committee of Management of Trust Masjid Idgah without any authority of law and in utter violation of decree of a court decree, with the help of some Muslims put up a super structure and encroached upon the land of Katra Keshav Dev belonging to Shree Krishna Janmasthan Trust and the deity.
The civil court dismissed the suit in September 2020 after which an appeal was filed against the same before the District court which was admitted by the District Judge in Mathura in October 2020.
In February 2021, A Mathura court issued notices to the Shahi Idgah Masjid management committee and others, seeking their stands on a fresh plea for the removal of the 17th-century mosque from near the birthplace of Lord Krishna in the Katra Keshav Dev temple complex here.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Dev Kant Shukla issued notices after admitting the plea, ruling that the suit is maintainable and hence admissible for detailed hearing, District Government Counsel (Civil) Sanjai Gaur said.
After admitting the civil suit, the court also issued notices to three other respondents — the president of Sunni Waqf Board, Lucknow and the managing trustees of Sri Krishna Janmabhumi Trust Katra Keshav Dev temple and Sri Krishna Seva Sansthan, Katra Keshav Dev temple.
The court sought the stands of four respondents to the new plea. The fresh plea was filed by priest Pawan Kumar Shastri of the old Keshav Dev temple on behalf of the temple’s deity, Thakur Keshav Dev Ji Maharaj Virajman.
Sevayat Shastri has made three demands in his plea; firstly claiming the right to manage the entire 13.37 acres land of the Katra Keshav Dev temple complex, including the land on which the Shahi Idgah mosque stands. He sought the right to manage the entire temple complex claiming that his ancestors have been serving as priests of the deity for decades and he has inherited the right from them as the temple’s “real sevayat” (priest).
“After several rounds of litigation, in which Muslims had claimed ownership for parts of the plot, a settlement was reached in 1968. It was decreed by the court in 1974. The compromise divided the land and asked the Seva Sangh and the management of the Shahi Masjid Idgah to stay away from each other’s sections”.
Shastri has also demanded the annulment of a 1967 ruling of Mathura court which has ratified a land deal between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and Shahi Idgah Management Committee, allowing the existence of the mosque near the temple. In his third plea, Shastri has demanded a court direction to the Shahi Masjid Idgah’s management committee and Lucknow’s Sunni Waqf Board’s president to remove the mosque from its current location.
BJP Agenda To Raise Political Temperature In Uttar Pradesh
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Raja Singh has called for the construction of grand temples of Lord Krishna in Mathura and Lord Shiva in Kashi. In an apparent reference to the mosque in Mathura, the saffron party lawmaker said that the small things will be demolished and a Mandir of Krishna will be built in Mathura under the leadership of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
Releasing a video of himself, Raja Singh said ‘Ram Mandir to ek jhanki hai, Kashi, Mathura abhi baki hai’. Just like the Babur’s structure was demolished, small things will be destroyed in Mathura and a grand temple of Lord Krishna will be built.
A grand mandir of Krishna in Mathura is a wish of all the countrymen and Krishna bhakts, he said.
Under Yogi Adityanath’s leadership, all small structures in Mathura will be destroyed and a grand temple will be built at the janmasthan of Lord Krishna, the BJP MLA said. Raja Singh also advocated for a temple of Lord Shiva in Kashi.
The BJP MLA’s statements are expected to raise the political temperature in Uttar Pradesh which would be going to polls in early 2022.
Place Of Worship Special Provision Act 1991
In addition, there is the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act to be considered. The 1991 Act says that no person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof.
Passed in 1991 by the P V Narasimha Rao-led Congress government, the law seeks to maintain the “religious character” of places of worship as it was in 1947 — except in the case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which was already in court. The law was brought in at the peak of the Ram Mandir movement, exactly a year before the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
It declares that the religious character of a place of worship existing on August 15, 1947, shall continue to be the same as it existed on that date. The Act specified that nothing contained in the statute shall apply to the place of worship which was the disputed structure at Ayodhya and to any suit, appeal or other proceedings related to it.
The clause declaring the objective of the law describes it as “an Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.
Sections 3 and 4 of the Act declare that the religious character of a place of worship shall continue to be the same as it was on August 15, 1947 and that no person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination into one of a different denomination or section.
Section 4(2) says that all suits, appeals or other proceedings regarding converting the character of a place of worship, that were pending on August 15, 1947, will stand abated when the Act commences and no fresh proceedings can be filed.
However, legal proceedings can be initiated with respect to the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship after the commencement of the Act if the change of status took place after the cut-off date of August 15, 1947.
Section 5 says: “Act not to apply to Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid. Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the place or place of worship commonly known as Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid situated in Ayodhya in the State of Uttar Pradesh and to any suit, appeal or other proceeding relating to the said place or place of worship.”
Besides the Ayodhya dispute, the Act also exempted:
- any place of worship that is an ancient and historical monument or an archaeological site, or is covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958;
- a suit that has been finally settled or disposed of;
- any dispute that has been settled by the parties or conversion of any place that took place by acquiescence before the Act commenced.
The Indian Penal Code contains various provisions to address offences relating to religion. Of these, Section 295 states that whoever destroys, damages or defiles any places of worship or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the aim of insulting the religion of any class of person or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished.
Section 295 also provides for punishment of a person who – with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or visible representation or otherwise – insults or attempts to insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class.
Shahi Eidgah Mathura & Babri Masjid Ayodhya
The adjuration in the Mathura suit claims that the Place Of Worship Special Provision 1991 Act does not apply to this dispute, but fails to explain why.
In the Ayodhya case, the suit by the friends of the deity was filed in 1989. The Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindutvadis (Karsevaks) on December 6, 1992, a crucial event that many feel led to the Supreme Court give its judgement in November 2019 handing over the site to the Hindus since there was no need to order the removal of a mosque. But in the case of Mathura, the mosque exists. The suit has urged the court to order the removal of the mosque.
In Ayodhya, the claim was that the first Mughal emperor Babur destroyed a grand temple and built the Babri Masjid over it in the 16th century. Based on archaeological findings, the Apex Court accepted that there was a structure beneath the mosque. But the court made it clear that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the temple had been demolished for the purpose of the building a mosque. In fact, the court pointed out that there was a gap of four centuries between the date of the alleged temple beneath the mosque and the construction of the Babri Masjid.
In the case of Mathura, the claimant has alleged that it was Aurangazeb, a descendant of Babur, who destroyed part of a temple to construct the Idgah mosque. “That it is matter of fact and history that Aurangzeb ruled over the country from 31.07.1658 to 3.03.1707 AD and he being staunch follower of Islam had issued orders for demolition of large number of Hindu religious places and temples including the temple standing at the birth place of Lord Shree Krishna at Katra Keshav Dev, Mathura in the year 1669-70 AD. The army of Aurangzeb partly succeeded to demolish Keshav Dev Temple and a construction was forcibly raised showing the might of power and said construction was named as Idgah Mosque.”
According to the litigant, in 1770, the Marathas defeated the Mughals and drove them out of Mathura. The mosque was removed and the temple was restored, the plaint claims.
The plaintiff alleged that there was no mosque structure on the disputed land until 1915. Only a dilapidated building stood there, the plaint claims. But a superstructure has been built on the land by the Muslims with a claim that it is a mosque.
This is just like the arguments held in the Ayodhya case as well, in which the Hindu side raised questions about whether the Babri Masjid was actually a mosque. The Hindu parties claimed that mosque that had been constructed after allegedly demolishing a temple was against the tenets of Islam. They also claimed that no prayers had taken place in the structure for a long time. The plaint in Shahi Eidgah matter claimed that the prison in which Krishna was born lies beneath the disputed site and this fact will be established if an excavation is conducted.
Echoing the claim made in the Ayodhya dispute that the ‘Ram Janmasthan’ is holy, the suit in the Mathura case contends that the believed ‘Krishna Janmasthan’ has a sacred place in the Hindu tradition and has been made one of the parties. The area of the janmasthan in Mathura is called Katra Keshav Dev. It allegedly covers 13.37 acres, according to the plaint. It wants the mosque, which stands next to the Krishna Janmasthan temple, to be removed.
The suit is strangely similar to the narrative used by Hindutva supporters to claim the site of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. In that case, they alleged that the mosque had been built on the same spot where Ram had been born after the Mughals demolished a temple that had stood there. Even the evidence that is being submitted to the court in the Mathura suit has eerily taken a line similar to the Ayodhya case.
Petition challenging constitutionality of 1991 Places of Worship Act admitted by Supreme Court of India – Muslim fears with regard to their places of worship
In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India, the petitioner – a former spokesperson of the BJP – challenges the constitutional validity of sections 2, 3, and 4 of the 1991 Act, alleging that they offend Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26 and 29 of the constitution, besides violating the principles of secularism, which are an integral part of the basic structure and Preamble of the constitution.
Upadhyay and the BJP have their sights on the Eidgah in Mathura, which the Sangh Parivar says is the birthplace of Krishna. And attempts are also being made to revive the dispute over the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, which stands close to the Kashi Vishvanath temple.
In the PIL, Upadhyay had challenged the cut-off date of August 15, 1947 specified in the said 1991 Act as irrational and arbitrary, and said that the Centre had barred the remedies against illegal encroachment of places of worship and pilgrimages of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs, which he claimed was carried out by “fundamentalist barbaric invaders and lawbreakers”.
The PIL had said that the Centre has no legislative competence to fix the retrospective cut off date as August 15, 1947.
“Centre by making impugned provisions in 1991 has created arbitrary irrational retrospective cutoff date, declared that character of places of worship and pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on 15/8/1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in Court in respect of the dispute against the encroachment done by barbaric fundamentalist invaders and such proceeding shall stand abated,” it reads.
It also said that the Centre must respect International Conventions which state that citizens have a right to restore damaged places, which were done when India remained under slavery from 1192 to 1947. The retrospective cutoff-date August 15, 1947 was fixed to legalise the “illegal” acts of barbaric invaders and foreign rulers, the PIL added.
Further, it said, “The Centre has barred the remedies against illegal encroachment on the places of worship and pilgrimages and Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs cannot file suit or approach (the) High Court. Hence, won’t be able to restore their places of worship and pilgrimage including Temples, Endowments, Mutts etc from hoodlums and illegal barbaric acts of the invaders will continue in perpetuity.”
The petition had also said that it is a historical fact that in 1192, “invader” Muhammad Ghori established Islamic rule after defeating Prithviraj Chauhan. The citizens have the right to restore past glory and nullify the signs of slavery and atrocities committed by invaders, it added.
Surprisingly, the Supreme Court admitted the PIL and agrees to examine the validity of Places Of Worship Act and sought the Centre’s response on a PIL challenging the Constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 which mandates that the nature of all places of worship, except the one in Ayodhya (Babri Masjid) that was then under litigation, shall be maintained as it was on August 15, 1947, and that no encroachment of any such place prior to the date can be challenged in courts.
In its historic judgment on the Ayodhya dispute in November 2019, the Supreme Court made a reference to the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The court stated: “In providing a guarantee for the preservation of the religious character of places of public worship as they existed on 15 August 1947 and against the conversion of places of public worship, Parliament determined that independence from colonial rule furnishes a constitutional basis for healing the injustices of the past by providing the confidence to every religious community that their places of worship will be preserved and that their character will not be altered. The law addresses itself to the state as much as to every citizen of the nation. Its norms bind those who govern the affairs of the nation at every level. Those norms implement the Fundamental Duties under Article 51A and are hence positive mandates to every citizen as well. The State, has by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalised its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.”
The bench observed: “The Places of Worship Act, which was enacted in 1991 by Parliament, protects and secures the fundamental values of the Constitution. The Preamble underlines the need to protect the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. It emphasises human dignity and fraternity. Tolerance, respect for and acceptance of the equality of all religious faiths is a fundamental precept of fraternity.…”
After the judgment in favour of those pleading for the construction of a Ram temple, it was hoped, would settle the dispute once and for all, more so as all contending parties had accepted it. However, within nine months of the Ayodhya judgment, in which the Apex Court had hailed the Places of Worship Act, the 1991 Act was questioned, the court has admitted petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 1991 Act. The admission of the petition had reopened old wounds that were sought to be healed by the provisions of the Act. The Kashi and Mathura mosques are now being targeted by Hindutva forces that believes a favourable ruling on the Act would encourage the government to repeal the Act.
In July 2020, the Lucknow-based Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh filed a petition in the Supreme Court through advocate Vishnu Jain seeking directions to declare Section 4 of the 1991 Act ultra vires the Constitution. The petitioners insisted that the remarks made in the Ayodhya verdict were mere observations without any judicial force as the Places of Worship Act was not under challenge in that case.
The petition challenging the place of worship act wants a more retrospective cut-off date than August 15, 1947. The Section 4 applies to all cases except the Babri Masjid case at that time. It applies even to those cases which were going on in various courts at that time. Petitioners are trying to prove that the Act is ultra vires after 30 years of the Act was promulgated. It will have many repercussions as there are plenty of cases waiting in the row. Mathura, Kashi etc. It has opened the barriers. The court could have dismissed the PIL straight away but it admitted the petition despite the fact that it will create fear in the minds of the Muslim community with regard to their places of worship, especially in the aftermath of the Ayodhya dispute, and will destroy the secular fabric of the nation.
There are civil suits for removal of Varanasi’s Gyanvapi mosque that shares a boundary wall with the Kashi Vishwanath Temple, and of Shahi Eidgah mosque adjacent to Krishna Janmasthan temple in Mathura. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which had spearheaded the Ayodhya movement, claims these mosques in Kashi and Mathura were built after demolishing temples during the Mughal period. If the Apex Court negate the 1991 law fully or partially—to allow court proceedings in matters concerning pre-1947 conversions—it’ll have a swerving on the country’s politics, governance and landscape for decennary to come.
