Mathura: Petitioner demands sealing of Shahi Idgah Masjid; next court hearing on July 1

Amid the Gyanvapi survey row, a plea was filed before a Mathura court seeking the sealing of the Shahi Idgah Masjid and security deployment to prevent Hindu religious symbols from being damaged. Advocate Mahendra Pratap Singh who represents five plaintiffs in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid case referred to the recovery of Shivling from the Gyanvapi mosque in his petition. A day earlier, a Varanasi court had ordered the sealing of the spot where the Shivling was recovered and adequate security for the protection of that area.

In his plea, advocate Mahendra Pratap Singh urged, "In the recent Rakhi Singh vs Government of Uttar Pradesh case, the manner in which Shivling was found in the Gyanvapi mosque, Varanasi, the defendants were protesting there for this very reason. The same situation is seen in the aforesaid matter pertaining to the disputed property of Shri Krishnajanmabhoomi. In its real sanctum sanctorum, there are remains of Lotus, Sheshnag, Om, Swastik and other symbols of the Hindu religion. Some of them have been removed while the defendants are now trying to remove the others." 

Maintaining that the rationale for the dispute will come to an end if the evidence is destroyed, it added that the petitioners will suffer irredeemable injustice. Thus, he requested the court to bar people from entering the mosque premises. On Tuesday, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mathura commenced hearing the matter and adjourned it to July 1. 

Here is the petition: 

Pictures of alleged evidence cited by the petitioners: 

Clamour for removal of Idgah Mosque

The demand to demolish the Shahi Idgah Masjid gained momentum after the 2019 Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case. Three lawsuits pertaining to this issue have been filed in the Mathura court. Primarily, they challenged the agreement signed between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and the Shahi Idgah Mosque Management Committee on October 12, 1968. As per the agreement, the mosque was allowed to exist and use the land on which it is situated.

However, the petitioners have argued that the agreement should be cancelled as the Sansthan did not have the authority to ink the deal with the mosque management committee. The All-India Akhara Parishad has backed the contention that Mughal emperor Aurangzeb built the mosque in place of a Krishna temple which was constructed at the birthplace of Lord Krishna. On the other hand, the opposing side has often cited the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act. Barring the Ayodhya litigation, this law prohibited courts from entertaining any petition that would alter the status quo of a religious place as existed on August 15, 1947.