Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

In the Mathura Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute, the Supreme Court on April 28, 2025, held that the Hindu plaintiffs have to be allowed to implead the ASI and the Union in the main suits filed on behalf of the deity.

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna said that the Committee of Management of the Shahi Masjid Idgah was 'absolutely wrong' in their plea that the Allahabad High Court's decision to allow the Hindu plaintiffs to do so was wrong. 

CJI clarified that Order VI Rule 17 (amendment of pleadings) applies to Order I Rule 10 (the addition and substitution of parties in a civil suit) as well. 

However, the CJI said that it will assess whether the order of the high court is effective and, importantly, its impact on the Idgah Management committee's application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint.

When the counsel for the Idgah committee pointed out that the court would also need to examine whether the suit by the Hindu plaintiffs is barred and whether the high court has jurisdiction, the CJI remarked that the committee is simply going round in circles over the matter. It needs to file its written statement to the amended plaint. 

The bench, also consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar, ordered the matter to be tagged along with the Special Leave Petitions 20074 and 20088 of 2024, which are likely to be listed for hearing on May 2, 2025. 

The Committee of Management of the Shahi Masjid Idgah moved the apex court challenging the Allahabad High Court's March 5, 2025, order that allowed the plaintiffs to add new facts based on a 1920 notification declaring the Katra mound — believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna — as a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. The plaintiffs were also permitted to implead the Union of India and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as defendants in the suit.

Challenging this decision, the Shahi Idgah Trust Management Committee has approached the apex court arguing that the high court's order would completely change the nature of the original suit and would severely prejudice their case. They have contended that the amendments allowed by the high court amount to setting up a “new case” altogether, particularly an attempt to bypass the bar imposed by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, by invoking the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

The Trust has also pointed out that the amendment was allowed even though Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) concerning the maintainability of the original suits were already pending before the Supreme Court. They have argued that the High Court's decision to allow such amendments, despite ongoing proceedings before the apex court, would lead to procedural complications and irreparable harm.

Earlier, while passing the impugned order, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad High Court had reasoned that procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice. The court had held that even though the plaintiffs cited the wrong provision (Order VI Rule 17 CPC) for seeking impleadment of parties instead of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, the broader object of effective adjudication justified allowing the amendments. A payment of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the plaintiffs to be paid to the defendant, and directions were given to amend the plaint and file additional written statements accordingly.

Case Title: Committee Of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah Versus Devta Bhagwan Shri Krishna Lala Virajman Next Friend And Ors