Supreme Court tells trial court to halt action in Sambhal case
The apex court also emphasised the need for the Uttar Pradesh government to maintain “peace and harmony” in the communal dispute.
The Supreme Court on Friday asked a Sambhal court to defer hearing the Shahi Jama Masjid survey case till the Allahabad high court lists the appeal by the mosque management committee against the survey, even as it asked the mosque committee to approach the high court to challenge the trial court’s order of survey, and instructed that the matter be heard within three days of the appeal being filed.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court said it was not disposing of the petition and asked that it be relisted in the week of January 6, indicating that it was aware of the larger ramifications of the case. Protests against the survey have resulted in four deaths in the Uttar Pradesh town.
The apex court also emphasised the need for the Uttar Pradesh government to maintain “peace and harmony” in the communal dispute.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of (CJI) India Sanjiv Khanna and justice PV Sanjay Kumar further underscored the importance of neutrality and objectivity while suggesting that the state explore community mediation under Section 43 of the Mediation Act, which provides for resolving communally sensitive disputes through district-level committees.
“We do not want any disturbance. Please, ensure peace and harmony... Also see Section 43 of your Mediation Act that talks about community mediation and district committees...We have to be absolutely and totally neutral,” the bench told additional solicitor general KM Nataraj, who appeared for the Uttar Pradesh government and assured the court that necessary measures were in place to prevent any law-and-order issues.
Also read: Cautious optimism in Sambhal after SC order; Friday prayers peaceful
The bench refrained from commenting on the merits of the case but clarified that no action will be taken by the trial court until the matter is heard by the Allahabad high court. It also directed that if the advocate commissioner submits his survey report, the report would not be made public or acted upon until the hearing before the high court.
The bench refrained from commenting on the merits of the case but clarified that no action will be taken by the trial court until the matter is heard by the Allahabad high court. It also directed that if the advocate commissioner submits his survey report, the report would not be made public or acted upon until the hearing before the high court.
“If the decision had not been taken, who knows what would have happened next and the social fabric would have been in tatters. Business was suffering a lot due to the internet not working. Hope that soon both business and life will become normal,” said Suhel Parvez, a local businessman.
“The Supreme Court’s intervention has restored trust in the judiciary. The violence, which claimed four lives, could have escalated into a communal clash, but restraint from both sides prevented it,” said local activist Sunil Saurav.
Also read: Akhilesh questions rationale behind second survey of Sambhal mosque
The bench was hearing a plea by the mosque’s managing committee challenging a trial court order directing a survey of the mosque, raising questions over its legality and the manner in which it was ordered. The petition demanded an immediate stay on the survey, arguing that such surveys, particularly of historic places of worship, could exacerbate communal tensions and undermine the secular fabric of the country.
Two such surveys, carried out on the orders of a local civil court, triggered widespread tensions in Sambhal, culminating in violent clashes on November 24 that left four people dead and several injured, including police personnel. Police have since arrested 25 individuals, including political leaders, and named over 2,000 unidentified persons in multiple FIRs.
The Uttar Pradesh government late on Thursday night named former Allahabad high court judge Devendra Kumar Arora as the head of a three-member committee to probe the incidents of violence sparked by the survey.
The dispute centres on the Shahi Jama Masjid in Chandausi, which the committee contends has been in continuous use as a mosque since the 16th century. However, a suit filed on November 19, 2024, by eight plaintiffs, including Supreme Court lawyer Hari Shankar Jain, said that the mosque was built on the site of a “Harihar Temple” and sought access to the site.
On the same day, the civil court in Sambhal allowed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appointing an advocate commissioner to conduct a survey of the mosque with photography and videography. The order was passed ex parte, with no notice to the mosque management. Within hours of the order, the survey was conducted, and another survey was carried out five days later, with barely six hours’ notice to the mosque committee, according to the plea.
Senior counsel Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the mosque committee, urged the Supreme Court to intervene directly to prevent further communal tension and for reinforcing judicial propriety in handling sensitive disputes involving historic places of worship. Assisted by advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Ahmadi pointed out that such surveys are increasingly being used as a tool to provoke communal tension.
The bench urged Ahmadi to explore remedies in the high court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution (writ jurisdiction) or the court’s revisionary jurisdiction.
Simultaneously, the bench added: “We don’t want anything to happen in the meantime.” Making it clear that the trial court should not proceed further until the high court takes up the matter, it remarked: “Normally, we would not permit such leapfrogging to this court...(but) they have a right to challenge the order (of survey) in the high court, and it should be listed before the court...Till the next date, let the trial court not take any action.”
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the Hindu plaintiffs who filed the suit before the Sambhal civil court, pointed out that the next hearing was slated for January 8 before the trial court. Responding, the court observed: “We don’t want anything to happen in the meantime. Let nothing happen before the trial court for the time being. And we are going to keep this SLP (special leave petition) also pending here.”
The committee’s petition in the top court argued that the suit violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibits the conversion of a religious place’s character as it existed on August 15, 1947. The top court’s orders didn’t mention the 1991 act. Notably, a batch of petitions – some seeking to scrap the law and some others asking for tight enforcement of that law -- have remained pending before the top court since March 2021.