The litigants in the Gyanvapi mosque dispute in Varanasi, the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah dispute in Mathura and the Shahi Jama Masjid case in Sambhal have informed judicial and legal services authorities that they do not wish to enter a negotiated settlement.
Their decision is expected to keep the politically sensitive cases outside the Supreme Court’s Samadhan Samaroh 2026 initiative, a nationwide programme designed to resolve pending disputes through mediation, conciliation and voluntary settlement. The exercise is scheduled to culminate in a special Lok Adalat at the Supreme Court from August 21 to 23.
The Supreme Court administration had invited the contesting parties to explore whether the disputes could be resolved without prolonged litigation. Notices were also channelled through state and district legal services authorities, which have been coordinating physical and virtual settlement proceedings.
However, lawyers representing the competing sides have argued that the cases involve questions that cannot be determined through compromise. These include property title, religious rights, constitutional protections and the interpretation of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
The Muslim parties have maintained that the religious character of the mosques is protected by the 1991 law, which generally freezes the status of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. Hindu petitioners have contested the applicability of that protection to their claims and have sought judicial examination of historical records, surveys and alleged evidence of pre-existing temples.
Some Hindu plaintiffs in the Mathura litigation had earlier attended a district-level Lok Adalat on July 4 and proposed that the Shahi Eidgah structure be shifted to another site. Representatives of the mosque side did not participate in that proceeding. The proposal included the possibility of providing an alternative plot if the mosque committee relinquished its claim over the contested land.
The latest position indicates that the broader Supreme Court-led settlement effort has failed to secure the consent required from both sides. Lok Adalat decisions depend on voluntary agreement and cannot impose a settlement when parties remain divided over ownership and legal rights.
The Gyanvapi litigation centres on claims that the mosque adjoining the Kashi Vishwanath temple was constructed over an earlier temple during the Mughal period. Several suits seek worship rights within parts of the complex, including access to Hindu deities and structures claimed to exist on the premises.
The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, which manages the mosque, has denied the central claims and challenged the maintainability of the suits. Proceedings involving archaeological findings, access to sealed areas, worship in a cellar and the disputed structure inside the ablution area have moved through courts in Varanasi, the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court.
The Mathura cases concern the Shahi Eidgah mosque beside the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi temple. Hindu plaintiffs argue that the mosque occupies land associated with the birthplace of Lord Krishna and have challenged a 1968 settlement between the temple management and the mosque committee.
Multiple suits seek possession of the disputed property, cancellation of the settlement and, in some cases, removal of the mosque. The Muslim side argues that the claims are barred by the Places of Worship Act, limitation rules and earlier agreements governing the land.
The Sambhal dispute began after a civil court ordered a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid following a petition claiming that a Harihar temple had previously stood at the site. Violence erupted during a second survey in November 2024, leaving several people dead and many others injured.
The Supreme Court later directed the trial court not to advance the proceedings until the mosque committee had approached the Allahabad High Court against the survey order. The case has since become closely linked to the wider judicial debate over whether courts may entertain new claims seeking changes to the religious character of protected sites.
