Allahabad HC allows survey of Mathura Idgah mosque

LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court granted permission on Thursday for a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah premises adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura.

The court has approved the appointment of an advocate commissioner who will supervise the survey of the mosque. The petitioners assert that the mosque exhibits indications suggesting its historical roots as a Hindu temple.

Modalities for the survey will be deliberated upon during the next hearing scheduled for December 18.

This ruling marks the second instance where the high court has endorsed a survey in a temple-mosque dispute in recent months.

The court agreed to the appointment of an advocate commissioner to oversee the survey of the mosque, which the petitioners claim holds signs suggesting that it was a Hindu temple once.

The Archeological Survey of India (ASI) recently completed a survey of the Gyanvapi mosque next to Varanasi’s Kashi Vishwanath temple, but has sought more time from a local court to submit its report.

According to advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, the application submitted to the High Court in the Mathura case said a lotus-shaped pillar characteristic of Hindu temples exists on the mosque premises, and an image of Hindu deity ‘Sheshnag’ is also present there.

It was also submitted that Hindu religious symbols and engravings are visible at the base of the pillar.

In May, the High Court transferred to itself all cases related to the Mathura dispute.

On November 16, Justice Jain had reserved the order on the Hindu side’s petition seeking a survey of the Shahi Idgah premises. The petition was filed on behalf of the deity Bhagwan Sri Krishna Virajman and seven others through advocates Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Prabhash Pandey and Devki Nandan.

It claimed that Lord Krishna’s birthplace lies beneath the mosque. The applicants had sought the appointment of a commission with specific directions to submit its report within a stipulated time period after conducting a survey.

The petition also sought directions to photograph and record the entire proceedings on video.

According to the petitioners, the factual aspects of the “disputed structure” have to be brought before the court for proper adjudication.