‘Krishna Janmabhoomi’ dispute: HC appears correct to implead Centre, ASI in suits, Supreme Court tells mosque panel

The mosque committee argued that amendment of the petition inter alia changes the nature of the suit and makes out a new case while negating the defence that has already been taken by it in its written statement. The committee contended that this would result in changing the pleadings when the question on whether the existing suits are barred is pending before the apex court.

The court, however, pointed out that when the mosque committee was relying upon the provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, in its defence, the petitioners were entitled to ask for impleading the Centre and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

“When you take the defence relying upon a particular Act, they are entitled to amend the plaint or even in replication, they take up the plea that this Act will not apply… Therefore in that they didn’t require amendment of the plaint,” said the CJI, adding that the court could have impleaded them as parties.

The CJI said, “Prima facie, the order to that extent appears to be correct in accordance with law, because when you are amending the plaint, you are not going into the merits.”

CJI Khanna denied that allowing the amendment will result in a new case. “No, it is not a new case because the defence taken by you, they are entitled to challenge that…otherwise he can argue, you cannot even raise that defence…because the moment you raise your defence, they are entitled to say your defence is wrong.”

Appearing for the Hindu petitioners, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain said monuments protected by the ASI were exempt from the application of the Places of Worship Act. But the CJI said the question was still pending before it.

“As far as the question of whether the monuments protected by the ASI, but are being used as a mosque, will be governed and protected under the Act, subject matter is already before us in a number of cases,” said CJI Khanna.

Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, appearing for the committee, said the high court order was also in violation of the Supreme Court’s December 12, 2024 directive, which barred civil courts across the country from registering fresh suits challenging the ownership and title of any place of worship and from ordering surveys of disputed religious places till further orders. It also barred courts from passing any effective interim orders in pending suits.

The CJI said that while the argument may be correct to an extent, the committee had not pointed out to the high court, or in its appeal to the Supreme Court, that allowing the amendment would amount to an effective order.

“To one extent you may be correct, because we said that there will be no effective interim orders; whether this is an effective interim order or not, you never raised that point before the high court, not even in this SLP (Special Leave Petition)… Where have you raised this?” the CJI asked.

The matter will now be heard along with appeals challenging the Allahabad High Court order holding the suits as maintainable.