By Admin 
In the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Mosque dispute of Mathura, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the petition of one Hindu party, which has objected to making the other Hindu party the representative of all the devotees of Lord Krishna. This petition has been filed against the order of Allahabad High Court. On Monday (November 24, 2025), the court said that it will hear this petition on December 1.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe said that there is a need for a detailed hearing on this issue. The Allahabad High Court had allowed another Hindu party, which had filed a separate suit seeking removal of the Shahi Idgah Mosque from the disputed site in Mathura, to be considered representative of all devotees. Advocate Shyam Diwan of the aggrieved Hindu side said that there was an error in the High Court order in considering the other party as the representative of all the devotees.
He said that he (his client) was the first to file the suit and it was inappropriate for the High Court to pursue the other party in one of the civil suits related to such a dispute. He said that the High Court has given this order, whereas no such demand was made in the application of that party.
According to the report of Live Law, there are a total of 18 cases in the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah dispute, which the High Court has transferred to itself. Of these, 15 were grouped together and the rest were listed separately. In July, the High Court had allowed the plaintiffs of case number 17 to be considered the representatives of all the devotees. Case number 17 was filed through next friend in the name of Lord Shri Krishna Virajman. The other plaintiffs in this case are Surendra Kumar Gupta, Mahavir Sharma and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava.
Now the plaintiffs of case number 1 have reached the Supreme Court against this decision of the High Court. Case number one was filed in the name of the deity through a next friend. Its other plaintiffs are Ranjana Agnihotri, Pravesh Kumar, Rajesh Mani Tripathi, Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Shivaji Singh and Tripurapuri Tiwari. Senior advocate Shyam Diwan, the lawyer of these petitioners, told the court that he is the first party to file the case and the other cases are just copycats.
Shyam Diwan said in the court, ‘Original suit number 1/2023 was made the leading case. If we file a representative suit on behalf of the plaintiff then it should be the leading suit because this suit did everything. The rest are copycats and as per the theme they took the issues on a larger scale so this is a very serious part… If this has to be done then there should be a proper process. You can’t have a few copycat lawsuits that suddenly come up like this.
The lawyer also told the court that in the application of Suit No. 17, permission was sought only to treat the defendants as representatives of the Muslim community, but the High Court went too far and allowed the plaintiffs in Suit No. 17 to act as representative plaintiffs on behalf of the devotees of Lord Krishna.
The dispute is related to the Shahi Idgah Mosque, which the Hindu side claims was built by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna in Mathura. More than 20 civil cases filed in a Mathura court have been transferred to the High Court and their decisions are pending.
The Supreme Court is already considering a petition filed by the Mosque Committee, challenging the High Court’s order of May 26, 2023. The High Court had transferred to itself all the cases related to the dispute pending in the Mathura court. The Hindu side had requested the High Court to conduct the original hearing in the same manner as it had done in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi ownership dispute.