The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine a plea by the mosque committee challenging an Allahabad High Court order allowing the Hindu claimants to bring in the home ministry and the Archaeological Survey of India as parties in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah dispute in Mathura.
On January 22, the apex court extended its interim directive of January 16 last year by which it had stayed a high court order appointing a court commissioner to inspect the mosque.
When the matter came up for hearing on Friday, the mosque committee, represented by advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, moved a fresh application challenging the high court’s March 5 order by which it had allowed the Hindu claimants to amend their original suit and make the home ministry and the ASI defendants to the case.
According to the Hindu claimants, the dispute doesn’t fall under the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
The Act prohibits any change in the character of a place of worship except the Ram Janmabhoomi site at Ayodhya. However, the Hindu claimants insist that the Krishna Janmabhoomi Sthall is an ancient protected monument and hence the dispute has to be adjudicated based on the Ancient Monuments Act, 1904.
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan on Friday, however, observed that both the high court and the plaintiff/Hindu claimants were entitled to amend the petition under the Civil Procedure Code and the high court/civil court can direct any party to be joined as a plaintiff or defendant in a suit.
“When you take the defence relying upon a particular Act (Places of Worship Act), then they (Hindu groups) are entitled to amend the plaint or replication, that the Places of Worship Act will not apply,” CJI Khanna said.
The CJI, however, agreed with Ahmadi that by allowing the amendment application, the high court went against the December 12 order of the apex court that directed that in all pending suits related to places of worship, they should not pass interim orders, including those on survey. However, the bench pointed out that the mosque committee never contested the interim order before the high court or the apex court.
The bench said the question of whether the issue should be adjudged under the Places of Worship Act or the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act was a subject for consideration before the bench while dealing with PILs/cross petitions relating to the constitutional validity of the former legislation.