Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute: Allahabad HC Declares Suit 17 Against Shahi Idgah Representative Case

The suit in question, Original Suit No. 17 of 2023 (OSUT 17/2023), was filed by Bhagwan Shri Krishna (Thakur Keshav Dev Ji Maharaj) as a juridical person, along with four others, who claim that the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura stands on the birthplace of Lord Krishna. The plaintiffs are seeking the removal of the Idgah structure and permission to reconstruct a grand temple at the disputed site.

To this end, the plaintiffs had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), requesting the court to allow them to pursue the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of all Krishna devotees. The application was argued by advocates Ajay Kumar Singh and Tejas Singh.

On July 18, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra allowed the application, formally declaring that the plaintiffs are permitted to prosecute the suit on behalf of all worshippers of Lord Krishna. Court directed that a public notice be published in a national newspaper within 15 days to inform all interested persons and invite any objections.

The judge noted that there exists a large number of devotees across India and the world who share the plaintiffs' interest in protecting the Janmabhoomi, and allowing the suit in representative capacity would help prevent multiple litigations on the same issue.

This implies that the suit can now proceed as a "judgment in rem", meaning that the final decision in the case will be binding on everyone, not just the named parties or other related suits, but all persons, including other Krishna devotees and members of the Muslim community all over India.

The case is part of a wider legal battle over the Mathura site, where 18 civil suits have been filed in total concerning the Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute. 15 of those suits have been consolidated by the court earlier this year, with Suit No. 1 of 2023 designated as the lead case. However, OSUT 17/2023 and 2 others were not clubbed with the others, as they sought to proceed under the special provision of a representative suit.

The plaintiffs argue that the Shahi Idgah mosque, managed by the Anjuman Islamia Committee (Defendant No. 1), is an "unauthorised superstructure" constructed during Mughal rule over the original temple site. They also allege that religious symbols of the earlier temple can still be seen on the Idgah walls and that the structure does not qualify as a valid mosque under Islamic law.

The defendants had strongly opposed the application, arguing that they do not represent the entire Muslim community of India and cannot be made party to a suit on behalf of a religious group. The court took note of these objections and proceeded to partly allow the plaintiffs' application to sue in a representative capacity. Court clarified that the entire Muslim community cannot be made parties to the suit, and that only the named defendants can be sued.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for August 22, 2025, by which time the plaintiffs are expected to publish the mandatory notice and take steps for consequential amendments in the suit.