In the case of Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 7 Others v UP Sunni Central Waqf Board The Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid is being asked to be demolished in a civil court proceeding because it was constructed on property that should have belonged to Krishna Janmabhoomi. The petitioners asked the High Court to transfer the case since it included thousands of Lord Krishna devotees and was of national significance. The appellants argued that they had the right to file the lawsuit under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution since they are followers of Lord Krishna.
Furthermore, it was argued that the case involves a number of constitutional interpretation issues as well as important legal issues. The petitioners in the plea emphasised that other suits were filed after the initial suit was filed before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Mathura, replicating the text of the initial suit precisely. They argued that the nature of all these lawsuits and the remedy sought in them, as well as the subject matter, were comparable.
The Hindu side’s request to transfer the case involving the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid issue from the trial court to the High Court was granted by Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra’s single-judge panel of the Allahabad High Court.
The bench also issued an order allowing quick transfer applications. The District Judge of Mathura shall prepare a list of all such cases of like nature touching upon the subject matter and its periphery, expressly or by implication, containing particulars of such cases and these suits along with the record, which shall be duly forwarded to this Court within two weeks and shall stand transferred to this Court in the exercise of suo motu powers of this Court.
On September 30, 2020, a civil court dismissed the lawsuit, citing the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991’s prohibition against admitting the case. However, the Mathura District Court heard an appeal about this ruling. In May 2022, the Mathura Court declared the case to be maintainable and overruled the civil court’s decision to dismiss it.