National News: The Allahabad High Court has given a bold decision on the Sri Krishna Bhumi Shahi Idgah case in Mathura. The court has stated that Shahai Idgah will not be accepted as a disputed complex. A single bench of Justice Ram Mnohar Mishra gave the decision. "On the basis of the existing facts and the petition, Idgah cannot be declared a disputed structure at present," said the high court. According to the Hindu side and its followers, the Idgah was built by demolishing an ancient Hindu temple located on Shri Krishna's birthplace.
Mathura Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi case
Mahendra Pratap Singh, a litigant representing the Hindu side, filed a petition in the High Court on March 5, 2025. He demanded that the Shahi Idgah mosque must be declared as a disputed structure. The debate concluded in the court on May 23, but the court decided to reserve its decision. Mahendra Pratap Singh said that there is no evidence of a mosque being there; also, the mosque's name is not mentioned in the Khasra Khatauni, which is a land record document in India.
He also said that there is no record of the mosque in the Municipal Corporation, along with references from a historic book, Masir-e-Alam Giri, which says that there was a temple before the mosque.
Hindu side's Claim
The debate in this case was concluded on May 23 in Judge Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra's court. It was significant that Mahendra Pratap Singh's arguments were backed by all Hindu parties. He informed the court that the Archaeological Survey of India's survey would clarify everything. He stated that if someone encroached on someone else's land, then that land cannot be his while presenting the issue to the court. Additionally, he informed the court that the birthplace of Lord Shri Krishna in Mathura is a case similar to the Ram Temple and Babri Masjid cases in Ayodhya.
Mahendra Pratap's Petition
The Hindu side argues that Shahi Idgah Masjid needs to be designated as a contested structure since the court had already proclaimed Babri Masjid to be so before reaching a ruling in the Ayodhya case. Mahendra Pratap Singh further told the court that all of the evidence in this area had already been provided and that every foreign visitor to India had referred to it as a temple of God; none had brought up the existence of a mosque.
