Shahi Idgah row: Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple is Protected Monument, Hindu Side Tells Allahabad HC

Prayagraj: In the dispute going on between the Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple and Shahi Idgah Mosque, the Hindu side has told the court that the temple is a protected monument. This comes with the plea challenging the suit seeking "removal" of the Shahi Idgah mosque adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura.

Moreover, the Hindu side has further asserted that Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple, should be governed under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

The counsel for the Hindu side, Hari Shankar Jain, also submitted that the provisions of Places of Worship Act will not apply in the case. 

The matter is being heard by Justice Mayank Kumar Jain on the plea moved by the Muslim side regarding the maintainability of the suit.

Jain also said the fundamental right to worship can not be curtailed by law of limitation, and that the deity and devotees both have the right to be heard. 

The matter will be heard next on May 7.

The Muslim side in the case would present its arguments after completion of arguments of the Hindu side.

On Wednesday, the Hindu side submitted in the high court that the deity was not a party in the claimed compromise between the two sides in 1968 or in the court decree passed in 1974.

The counsel for the Hindu side had also said that the claimed compromise was made by Sri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which was not empowered to enter into any such pact.

The object of the Sansthan was only to manage day-to-day activities of the temple and had no right to enter into such compromise, the Hindu side argued.

During the earlier hearing, advocate Taslima Aziz Ahmadi, appearing for the Muslim side, had submitted before the court that the suit is barred by limitation.

As per Ahmadi, the parties had entered into a compromise on October 12, 1968. She had said the compromise had been confirmed in a civil suit decided in 1974. The limitation to challenge a compromise is three years but the suit has been filed in 2020 and thus the present suit is barred by limitation, she had argued.