A single judge bench of justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra dismissed a plea to declare the shahi idgah mosque in mathura as a ‘disputed structure’ While the plea itself that the mosque encroached upon the Krishna janmasthan temple complex was frivolous, it had a dangerous intent. The Krishna janmasthan temple complex was built in 1957 almost 300 years after the shahi idgah mosque. The claim of encroachment therefore is an attempt to create an alibi for intrusion into the mosque. There are some 18 similar petitions filed against the mosque. Not all of them are meant to secure a decree of title. It is to gradually erode the claim of ownership and nature of possession of the mosque. The Ayodhya judgement that awarded the Babri masjid site to the ramjanmabhoomi trust, despite the exception made in the places of worship act 1992, relied on the procedure of a title suit over a declared disputed property. Till date the RSS affiliates call it ‘vivadit dhancha’ or disputed structure instead of Babri masjid. The entire proceedings were focused on establishing continuous possession even if adversarial. The Muslim side failed to prove its continuous possession between 1857 and 1949, while the trust managed to prove an adversarial possession over parts of the premises. Now in mathura there’s no legal exception to the places of worship act, and there is unbroken possession and practice of the premises. Thus the intended mischief, aided by the contentious curiosity principle of justice chandrachud in the gyanvapi case, needs to create a dispute of title. The court’s ruling against declaring it disputed has set the legal framework right. This does not mean that the attempts to appropriate the mosque would stop, but using the hogwash of courts has become difficult. Coming from a single judge bench of the high court, there are many remedies left and the legal drama will continue. The keshavdev temple built in 1618 by veer Singh bundela of orchha was demolished by Aurangzeb in 1670 and the shahi idgah mosque was built on its site. The claim of it being the Krishna janmasthan finds little evidence. Modern republic of India cannot entertain claims of historical persecution and restoration, especially when aimed at humiliating and intimidating a minority.
A mischief called out
