In the recent update regarding the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque dispute, the Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the mosque committee. The appeal contested a high court directive to consolidate 15 suits related to the case.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta dismissed the mosque committee’s special leave petition against the Allahabad High Court’s January 11 decision to consolidate the 15 suits. They observed that a request to reconsider this decision was pending before the high court.
The high court issued the order following a request from the Hindu plaintiffs. They had pointed out that after the initial suit was filed in the Mathura court in September 2020, several other suits related to the 13.37-acre area of Katra, Keshav Dev, and the removal of the disputed structure were also filed.
Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, representing the mosque committee, raised concerns about potential complications that could arise from consolidating the cases.
Justice Khanna responded that they can always recall the order if complications arise.
In response, Ahmadi informed the court that the mosque committee has already filed an application in the Allahabad High Court to recall the order under challenge. Justice Khanna suggested that the application be heard first before considering the special leave petition.
The judge reasoned, “Let the recall application be decided first. Normally, recall or review cannot be decided if a special leave petition is pending,” rejecting the committee’s request to keep their plea before the apex court pending.
During the hearing, the bench also raised concerns about the mosque committee’s argument that the high court’s order was issued without adequate notice.
Uttar Pradesh Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad objected, noting, “Notice was served on December 18. Subsequent to that, other parties filed their objections, which were considered. No objections came from them…”
Ahmadi clarified, “Our contention is that we were not given time to file a reply, and no notice was issued on the application. It was filed on the last date, and a copy was given to us. The court did not issue notice. And on the next date, it was just taken up.”
In response, Justice Khanna sternly cautioned, “This creates problems. We have no hesitation. We can set aside this order and remand it back.”
Ultimately, after UP AAG Prashad insisted that notice was served, the bench agreed to dispose of the special leave petition.
“The present special leave petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive the same after the decision on the recall/review application,” the bench clarified.
