The Supreme Court on Tuesday put in abeyance a survey of the Shahi Eidgah mosque abutting the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura by an advocate-commissioner, observing that the plea made by the Hindu side for the survey was “very vague” and that some important legal issues also arise in the matter.

“Your application for commissioner was very vague. It had to be specific. This is wrong… You have to be very clear what you want him (commissioner) for, but you leave it to the court. It was an omnibus application,” observed a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta.

ALSO READ- How the Sangh Parivar’s campaign for Mathura’s Janmabhoomi evolved over the years

Staying the Allahabad high court order of December 14 for the appointment of an advocate-commissioner to oversee the survey of the mosque, the bench was emphatic that the plea of the Hindu plaintiffs did not specify the rationale behind the plea.

“You cannot say that appoint a commissioner in terms of the prayers in the plaint. You must be specific about what exactly you are asking for. Can an application be made like this? We have reservations about the application. It’s so vague… You cannot make an omnibus application like this,” the bench told senior counsel Shyam Divan, who appeared for the Hindu plaintiffs in the case.

The bench added: “We are staying the proceedings in terms of the appointment of commissioner. We will examine it.”

On December 14, the Allahabad high court ordered a survey of the mosque that Hindu plaintiffs say holds signs proving that it was a once a Hindu temple, opening a new chapter in the decades-old dispute that is part of a raft of cases where Hindu petitioners are pushing for legal change to gain rights over Islamic holy sites. It also acquires huge political significance at a time when the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya is scheduled to be consecrated on January 22, and a survey has already been carried out at the disputed Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi.

Tanveer Ahmed, the secretary of Intezamia (management) committee of Shahi Eidgh Masjid in Mathura, welcomed the order. “Supreme Court took strong view of lacking in application moved to seek survey by advocate commissioner. We too had been highlighting that application moved and allowed for survey by Allahabad High Court was vague and carried no proper ground for having survey. The Apex Court rightly granted stay against order by Allahabad High Court,” said Ahmed, who has been defending cases on behalf of Mosque Committee filed in Mathura Courts and transferred to Allahabad Court in May 2023.

“The matter is to be taken up yet again on January 23 before the Supreme Court which has observed today that application moved for seeking survey by advocate commissioner is ‘vague’ in itself. We will make effort to make the application more specific as desired by Apex Court. May be later, but we are confident that Supreme Court will be convinced that survey by advocate commissioner is much needed to highlight the Hindu symbols still present in Shahi Eidgah premises,” said Mahendra Pratap Singh, a lawyer who had filed one of the suits on this issue at Civil Court in Mathura on December 23, 2020.

During the proceedings on Tuesday, while Divan protested a complete stay on the order, adding the high court may be allowed to at least work out the modalities of the survey, the bench replied that the commission shall not be implemented for now.

ALSO READ- Remaining two Ram Lalla idols will also be enthroned in Ram temple: Trust

The court further said that apart from the questions over the application for the appointment of an advocate-commissioner, legal issues over passing an interim order without rendering a prima facie satisfaction regarding the maintainability of the suit also arose in the case. Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi appeared for the Idgah committee and the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board.

The bench fixed the next hearing of the case on January 23 when the other batch of petitions, challenging the high court order deciding to hear nearly 18 suits relating to Krishna Janmasthan-Shahi Eidgah land dispute by transferring them to itself from various civil courts in Mathura, will also be taken up.

The Supreme Court is seized of the challenge to a May 26 order of the Allahabad high court that transferred to itself all suits filed by Hindu parties claiming right over the mosque land. The mosque committee has argued that it did not have the financial wherewithal to defend the suits in the Allahabad high court which is 600km away and would prefer having it in Delhi which is only 150km away.

The May 26 order by the high court came on a plea by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman at Katra Keshav Dev Khewat Mathura (deity) through the next friend, Ranjana Agnihotri, who is also an advocate, and seven others. Next friend is a legal representative of someone incapable of maintaining a suit directly. The Hindu plaintiffs requested that the original trial be conducted by the high court as the matter involved is of national importance.

Multiple suits regarding the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque land dispute pending before various courts in Mathura have a common demand to reclaim the 13.37-acre land on which the mosque stands for the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust. The mosque abuts the temple and the suits have sought to annul a compromise entered between the mosque committee and Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh in 1968 allowing it to continue at the place where it currently stands.

The mosque, in its petition before the top court, questioned the maintainability of the suits after prolonged delay. It further argued that the suit is barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 which protects the “character” of all places of worship existing as on August 15, 1947 (barring the Ram Janmabhoomi land at Ayodhya) and prohibits filing of any lawsuits to alter the character of any place of worship.

ALSO READ- Ram Temple ‘pran prathishtha’: These states will observe holiday on Jan 22

On July 21, the top court observed that it would be in the interest of all stakeholders if the matter is decided “at the earliest” because pendency in such “sensitive” cases create “disquiet”. Adding that it would lay down norms for hearing the clutch of suits related to the dispute, the court had directed the high court registrar to send details of all such pending cases. On the day, the court had also remarked that it would be more appropriate for a high court judge to apply his mind considering the complex nature of the case.

The Gyanvapi case is also pending since May 2022 before the Supreme Court, which has so far refused to stay the proceedings before the Varanasi district judge. In that case, too, the civil court first appointed an advocate-commissioner and then July last year, a full scientific survey of the mosque premises by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was ordered to determine if the 17th century structure was built upon a pre-existing temple. The Supreme Court, at different points in time, refused to stay these orders when appealed against by the Gyanvapi mosque committee.

A batch of petitions — some seeking to scrap the 1991 Act and some others asking for tight enforcement of the same law — are also pending before the top court since March 2021. Last September, Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, while hearing the Gyanvapi case, observed that the religious “character” of a site also had to be led by evidence.