Supreme Court Halts Sambhal Masjid Proceedings Amid Clash Over Places of Worship Act and ASI Protection

New Delhi, August 22, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India has imposed a temporary halt on all proceedings related to the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, ordering a "status quo" until August 25. The interim order stems from a critical legal battle testing the boundaries of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, against the provisions governing nationally protected monuments.

A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar is presiding over a special leave petition filed by the Sambhal Mosque Committee. The committee challenges a May 19, 2025, order from the Allahabad High Court, which permitted a civil suit by Hindu plaintiffs to proceed, primarily on the grounds that the mosque's status as a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) places it outside the purview of the 1991 Act.

The brief but consequential hearing saw pointed arguments from both sides, laying the groundwork for a significant judicial examination of two conflicting statutory regimes. The Court's decision to pause the matter underscores its cautious approach, particularly after counsel for the Hindu plaintiffs cited a purportedly similar order from another Supreme Court bench issued the same day. "We will see that order. We do not want to pass inconsistent orders," Justice Narasimha remarked, instructing the counsel to produce the order at the next hearing.

---

The Core Legal Conundrum: 1991 Act vs. 1958 Act

At the heart of the dispute is the interplay between two central pieces of legislation:

1. The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991: This Act mandates a freeze on the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and bars courts from entertaining suits seeking to alter it.
2. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act): This Act governs the preservation of ancient and historical monuments. Section 4(3) of the 1991 Act explicitly carves out an exception for any monument or site covered by the AMASR Act.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the Sambhal Mosque Committee, argued that the Allahabad High Court erred by allowing the suit, which he contended fundamentally challenges the mosque's religious character in violation of the 1991 Act. His submission positions the case as a direct test of the Act's statutory bar on such litigation.

Conversely, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the Hindu plaintiffs, vehemently argued that the 1991 Act is inapplicable. He asserted that the Sambhal Mosque is an "Archaeological Survey of India-protected monument," squarely falling under the exception provided in Section 4(3). Jain framed the plaintiffs' suit not as an attempt to alter the site's religious character but as a plea to enforce the "right of public access" under Section 18 of the AMASR Act. He further bolstered his argument by informing the bench that another Supreme Court bench had just affirmed that ASI-protected monuments are not covered by the 1991 Act.

The bench, showing prudence, opted to await the text of this other order before proceeding, highlighting the judiciary's intent to maintain consistency across benches on this sensitive and recurring legal question.

Background of the Dispute and High Court's Reasoning

The case originates from a civil suit filed by eight Hindu plaintiffs, including Mahant Rishiraj Giri. They claim that the Shahi Jama Masjid, built in 1526, stands on the site of a partially demolished ancient temple dedicated to Kalki, the final avatar of Lord Vishnu. The suit seeks the right to access and worship within the structure.

This led a trial court, on November 19, 2024, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for a "local investigation" or survey of the mosque premises. The commissioner's subsequent visit reportedly sparked communal tensions, prompting the Supreme Court to stay the trial court proceedings pending a decision from the Allahabad High Court on the mosque committee's challenge.

In its detailed May 19, 2025, judgment, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the mosque committee's plea, affirming the trial court's orders on three key legal questions:

1. Notice under Section 80(2) CPC: The High Court found the plaintiffs' leave to institute the suit without the full notice period to be valid, as the government had not raised any objections.
2. Appointment of an Advocate Commissioner: It held that the appointment under Order XXVI CPC was procedurally sound, noting that in appropriate cases, such an order could be passed ex-parte.
3. Applicability of the Places of Worship Act, 1991: This was the most critical finding. The High Court concluded the suit was not barred because its primary relief sought was the enforcement of public access rights under the AMASR Act, not the conversion of the place of worship. It took note of historical records, including the site's declaration as a protected monument in 1920 and a 1927 agreement between its mutawallis (caretakers) and the Collector of Moradabad, which recognized the ASI's role in its maintenance.

Broader Implications and Judicial Landscape

The Sambhal case does not exist in a vacuum. Justice Narasimha himself raised the possibility of tagging this petition with the larger batch of cases currently before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

Furthermore, the arguments touch upon a December 2024 order from a Special Bench led by then-Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. That bench had imposed a freeze, barring civil courts from registering new suits or passing orders—specifically including survey orders—in cases seeking to "reclaim" historical religious sites, pending the adjudication of the 1991 Act's validity. As Justice K.V. Viswanathan had remarked during that hearing, "Civil courts cannot run a race with the Supreme Court." Mr. Ahmadi alluded to this precedent, suggesting the High Court's decision to uphold a survey order ran counter to the apex court's directive.

The Supreme Court's decision on Monday, August 25, will be closely watched. The bench will not only consider the specific facts of the Sambhal dispute but will also review the other bench's order on ASI monuments. This could lead to a more definitive ruling on the jurisdictional conflict between the 1991 Act and the 1958 Act, potentially setting a precedent for numerous similar disputes pending across the country. The outcome will significantly impact the trajectory of religious site litigation and the interpretation of a law designed to prevent it.

Case Details:

* Case No.: SLP(C) No. 21599/2025

* Case Title: Committee of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal, Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain

* Next Hearing: August 25, 2025