Mathura District Judge Says A Worshiper Can Sue As Deity’s Next Friend
Mathura District Judge Says A Worshiper Can Sue As Deity’s Next Friend
In a significant development that could have far-reaching implications, the Mathura District Judge, who allowed the civil revision petition Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust and other private partieshas observed in its order that the provisions of Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 The reasons under section 4(3)(b) of the 1991 Act were not applicable in the case.
The order also states that a worshiper can sue as the next friend of a deity.
Responding to the order, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) said it justified its stand on Mathura and Kashi temples. Lawyers for Shahi Idgah said the Supreme Court should clarify its stand on the 1991 Act, or else the lower courts would continue to interpret it arbitrarily.
‘Fraud deal’
The petitioner, Lord Shri Krishna Virajman, Asthan Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi moved through next friend Ranjana Agnihotri, argued that the 1968 agreement between Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and Shahi Idgah Trust was fraud and resulted in a settlement in 1974 . The petitioners submitted that after the settlement was reached, the society had accepted the ‘valuable property’ of the deity/trust to the Shahi Idgah Trust.
The lawyers representing the Idgah Trust argued that the society was an agent of the trust and the settlement agreement was also registered later.
Read also | In Parliament, BJP pitches for Krishna temple in Mathura
District Judge Rajeev Bharti argued that the decree was prepared before the commencement of the 1991 Act and since it is a matter of challenge in the suit presented by the petitioner, and therefore, on the basis of section 4(3)(b) ) 1991 Act, the Act shall not apply to this dispute.
Commenting, “Nothing contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall apply to any suit, appeal or other proceeding, in respect of any matter referred to in sub-section (2).” has been referred, finally decided, disposed of or disposed of by a court, tribunal or authority before the commencement of this Act,” said Mr. Bharti, “in the light of the discussions held on the question mentioned and the legal principles , this Court is of the view that the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 are not applicable.”
Mr Bharti passed the order on Thursday but it was uploaded only on Saturday.
The trial court had in September 2020 dismissed the suit saying that the plaintiff, being a devotee of Shri Krishna, had no right to file the suit, had come for revision.
The court held that a worshiper, as the next friend of the deity, can file a suit for restoration of religious rights to the deity.
‘Listen to both sides’
The order further stated that the trial court had committed illegality and asked both the sides to be heard. “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the trial or not shall be determined only on the basis of the evidence produced by both the parties during the trial,” the order said.
While counsel for the petitioners in both the Mathura and Varanasi cases, Hari Shankar Jain, welcomed the order, Tanveer Ahmed, counsel for the Shahi Idgah Trust, argued that the Supreme Court should clarify its stand on places of worship (special provision). Take action.
Legal observers said the order effectively meant that the Special Provisions Act did not come in the way of cases which sought declaration in the period prior to 1991 and to give effect to the claim that the Act had come into force. previously recognized.
VHP spokesperson Vinod Bansal said Hindu That the order justified the organization’s stand on Mathura and Kashi temples. “The Act does not come in the way of checking the truth. Even the Supreme Court has not stayed the survey of Gyanvapi Masjid.
Shri Bansal said that at present Mathura and Kashi are on the agenda of VHP but nothing can be said about the future. “It is not a Hindu-Muslim issue, every citizen should come forward in search of truth.”
‘Unnecessary Application’
Mr Ahmed feared this would turn into a series of pleas to correct so-called historical wrongs. “In the courts of Mathura itself, 8-10 petitions have been filed. One has demanded a survey on the lines of Gyanvapi Masjid, while some have demanded a ban on worship in Idgah. Such frivolous applications are filed to get space in the media which in turn woos many more Krishna and Vishnu devotees To knock on the doors of the judiciary.”
Advocate and social activist Madhuvan Dutt Chaturvedi recently demanded the demolition of Jama Masjid in Aligarh on the grounds that it was built on public land, called for changing the character of the Qutub Minar, and fueled the controversy over the Taj Mahal despite the Allahabad High is giving. The Court’s order shows that a concerted effort has been made to divert attention from the real issues and to inculcate majoritarian sentiment. “People of Mathura have always opposed attempts to communalise the atmosphere as we saw on December 6, 2021. I hope they continue to thwart such attempts.”