Back
Hears Sambhal Mosque Committee on Protection of
The on Tuesday heard extensive arguments from the Sambhal Jama Masjid Committee, which contended that the law mandates the preservation of the of ancient monuments and that any claim seeking access for worship that alters that character is legally untenable. Appearing before a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, forcefully challenged the trial court’s appointment of a and the ’s subsequent approval of that order. The arguments mark a critical juncture in the ongoing legal battle over the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, a dispute that has already sparked violence and raised fundamental questions about the interplay between monument protection and religious freedom.
Preserving of Ancient Monuments
At the heart of the mosque committee’s submission was the assertion that the (AMASR Act) prioritises the preservation of a monument’s over any general . Ahmadi argued that the Hindu plaintiffs’ case rested almost entirely on , which grants the public a to protected monuments. However, he pointed out that Section 16 of the same Act imposes a far more fundamental obligation—to protect the monument from misuse, pollution, and desecration, and, crucially, to maintain its existing where one exists.
“Section 16 is a mirror image of Section 3 of the Places of Worship Act,” Ahmadi submitted, drawing a direct parallel between the two statutes. imposes a on the . According to Ahmadi, the protection afforded by is equally absolute: if a has a , that character must be preserved unchanged. He argued that the plaintiffs’ prayer for access to perform religious ceremonies and offer prayers in the mosque was fundamentally inconsistent with this statutory mandate.
“The substratum of the case of the respondent is based on Section 18 [ to protected monuments],” Ahmadi submitted, emphasizing that the suit itself was contrary to the protection provided under Section 16. He contended that a place of worship that is also an ancient monument cannot have its altered through litigation, whether by a court order or by a party’s claim.
Procedural Irregularities in Commissioner Appointment
Ahmadi then turned to the procedural legality of the trial court’s order dated , which appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a local investigation of the mosque premises. He argued that the appointment was made , without any notice to the mosque committee, and without the trial court specifying the points on which the commissioner was required to report. This, he submitted, was a clear violation of , which mandates that the court define the matters on which the must investigate.
“There is no recording of the satisfaction by the Trial Court for the requirement of appointment of a , no enumeration of what he has to report, which is in violation of mandatory provisions of the CPC,” Ahmadi argued. He highlighted that the trial court had appointed the commissioner merely on the “” of the plaintiff, without recording any reasons why a local investigation was necessary, especially given that the suit had been filed nearly seventy years after the underlying claim arose.
The senior counsel also questioned the urgency behind the appointment, noting that the suit was not filed recently and there was no imminent threat that warranted such “.” He pointed out that the commissioner’s visit to the mosque premises was followed by deadly violence in Sambhal, in which six persons lost their lives, and that prayers were disrupted.
Commission to Assist Court, Not a Party
Ahmadi also took issue with the ’s observation that a commission could be used by a party to obtain the “.” He clarified the purpose of a commission under the CPC: “A commission is to assist the court.” He explained that a may be appointed either to ascertain ground realities or, after evidence is completed, to resolve an issue that cannot otherwise be determined. However, the court does not appoint a commissioner to help a litigating party gather evidence.
“This finding of the learned judge of the High Court that the commission can be used by a party to get the ; it is contrary to the CPC because the court doesn’t assist any party in getting evidence,” Ahmadi argued. This distinction is crucial in high-stakes property and religious disputes where surveys can inflame tensions and predetermine outcomes.
Places of Worship Act and the ’s December Order
Ahmadi further submitted that the had erred in holding that the Places of Worship Act, 1991 did not apply to the suit because the monument is protected by the (ASI). He argued that the exemption under Section 4(3) of the Act applies only to Section 4, which deals with the , and not to Section 3, which bans the . Section 3, he stressed, is a that applies to all places of worship regardless of ASI protection.
He also urged the to hear the Sambhal case alongside the pending batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, as well as the petition seeking its implementation. Referring to the ’s order, passed by a three-judge bench, which directed that no fresh suits relating to places of worship be registered and that courts refrain from passing effective interim or final orders in such pending proceedings, Ahmadi contended that the ought not to have proceeded with the matter. The December order specifically restrained courts from ordering surveys, making the High Court’s approval of the commissioner’s appointment all the more questionable.
Broader Implications and the Path Forward
The arguments before the highlight a significant legal tension between the statutory regime protecting ancient monuments and the growing wave of suits seeking to reclaim places of worship based on historical claims. The mosque committee’s reliance on the “non-retrogression” principle—which prohibits the dilution of existing protections—as embedded in both the AMASR Act and the Places of Worship Act, could have far-reaching consequences. If accepted, it would effectively bar any litigation that seeks to alter the of a monument that has been continuously used as a place of worship.
From a procedural standpoint, the case also reinforces the importance of adhering to the safeguards under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC when appointing local commissioners in sensitive matters. The ’s earlier December 12 order already signals a cautious approach, and the present appeal may lead to further guidance on the permissibility of surveys and commissions in disputes involving places of worship.
After Ahmadi concluded, also made submissions, arguing that the Places of Worship Act and the AMASR Act are and must be read together, with the principle of non-retrogression being inherent in both. The petitioners have completed their arguments, and the court will hear the respondents on the next date of hearing.
The case, formally titled Committee of Management Jami Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain (SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025 and connected matter), now awaits further proceedings. Legal professionals across the country will be watching closely, as the outcome could set a precedent for dozens of similar disputes and redefine the boundaries of religious freedom, monument preservation, and in civil litigation.
