In the ongoing Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah dispute, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to add the deity Shriji Radha Rani as a party to the case.

The court ruled that Radha Rani is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the matter, and her inclusion would change the nature and structure of the suit.

The application, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code by advocate Anil Kumar Singh Bishen on behalf of Shriji Radha Rani through her next friend Reena N. Singh, sought to implead the deity as a joint plaintiff in Original Suit No. 7 of 2023.

The suit, instituted by Shri Bhagwan Shrikrishna Lala Virajman and others, is against the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee.

The main suit contests the purported encroachment of the Shahi Idgah Masjid on the Krishna Janmasthan in Mathura, asserting that the site marks the birthplace of Lord Krishna and holds profound religious importance.

The plaintiffs have based their claims on historical records, reports by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and religious scriptures, arguing for the demolition of what they describe as an unlawful structure constructed during the Mughal era.

In the impleadment application, the applicant contended that Radha Rani shares an inseparable bond with Lord Krishna and is jointly entitled to the disputed 13.37 acres of land. Citing scriptures such as the Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Narada Pancharatra Samhita, and Skanda Purana, she asserted that Radha Rani is the soul of Krishna and should be recognised as a co-deity with corresponding ownership rights over the site.

However, the bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra rejected the impleadment plea, observing that claims rooted in religious texts cannot be treated as legal proof of ownership or interest in immovable property. The Court noted that there was no reference to a temple of Radha Rani on the disputed site, nor any concrete evidence supporting the applicant’s legal claim over the 13.37 acres of land.

It held that Pauranic references are generally regarded as hearsay in legal proceedings, being narrative depictions rather than records based on direct observation or admissible testimony. “There is no evidence in support of the claim raised by the applicant that the applicant is entitled as joint holder of said land of 13.37 acres,” the Court stated.

Although Plaintiff No. 1, represented by advocate Kaushal Kishor Thakur, did not object to Radha Rani’s impleadment, the other plaintiffs opposed it, arguing that the suit exclusively concerns Krishna Janmabhoomi and does not involve Radha Rani. They further submitted that Radha Rani is already a party in a separate suit pending before the civil court, making her addition in the present case legally inappropriate.

The Court concluded that impleading Radha Rani would unnecessarily broaden the scope of the litigation, potentially leading to delays and confusion. It emphasized that without any demonstrable legal or proprietary interest in the disputed property, the application could not be allowed. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the plea and listed the matter for the next hearing on July 4, 2025.

Case Title: Shri Bhagwan Shrikrishna Lala Virajman and 4 Others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board 3A and 3 Others