Back
Reserves Verdict on Sambhal Mosque Committee's Challenge to Survey Order
The on Thursday reserved its judgment on a petition filed by the , challenging the 's order that upheld the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey the mosque premises. A two-judge bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard detailed arguments from all parties, centering on the applicability of the , and whether the mosque, as a , falls within a .
The dispute originates from a civil suit filed by Hindu plaintiffs in 2024, claiming that the Mughal-era mosque was built after demolishing a pre-existing Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Vishnu's Kalki avatar. The appointed an Advocate Commissioner on , to conduct a local investigation. The , in its order, upheld the survey, holding that the suit could not be dismissed at the under the Places of Worship Act. The 's reserved verdict now awaits.
A Constitutional Conundrum
At the heart of the matter lies the interpretation of the Places of Worship Act, which prohibits the of any place of worship and maintains its as it existed on . The Act explicitly exempts the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute but does not directly address monuments protected under ancient monuments legislation. , representing the mosque committee, argued that of the Act imposes an independent and overarching , regardless of whether the site is an ancient monument.
"The long title of the Act makes clear that the prohibition operates irrespective of the religious denomination involved,"
Ahmadi submitted, adding that accepting the contrary interpretation would strip ancient temples and mosques of the protection against
. He also pointed out that the
and interpretation of the Act are already pending before a larger bench of the
, urging the bench to refrain from a conclusive ruling at this stage.
State's Neutral Stance
, appearing for the
, took a notably neutral position.
"As the State, we don't want to get into the respective claims of either of the parties. As the State, we are committed and bound to protect the interests of all,"
he told the Court. Nataraj focused on the statutory language of the Places of Worship Act, submitting that
defines "
" broadly to include alterations, and that
prohibits
. He argued that whether a proceeding is barred depends on whether it concerns
of
—and since the plaintiffs seek only access, not
, the bar may not apply.
Nataraj also referred to (2), which provides for of pending suits relating to , and to the exception under (3) for ancient monuments. He clarified that the State was not taking a position on the merits of the religious dispute, leaving the Court to decide the legal framework.
Hindu Plaintiffs Invoke Ancient Monument Protection
, representing the Hindu plaintiffs, argued that the Sambhal Jama Masjid is a protected monument under the , having been declared protected as early as . This, he contended, brings the structure within the exemption under (3)(a) of the Places of Worship Act, which excludes monuments protected under the ancient monuments regime.
Jain relied on the
's handling of the Bhojshala dispute, where the Court remanded the matter to the High Court rather than dismissing it outright under the Places of Worship Act.
"If there was a complete bar of the Places of Worship Act, the three-judge bench wouldn't have remanded the matter back to the High Court,"
he submitted. He also noted that the
had not conclusively decided the applicability of the Act, leaving it open for consideration at the stage of framing issues or an application under
.
Mosque Committee's Counter
, in his rejoinder, strongly contested the plaintiffs' reliance on the ancient monument exception. He argued that
's prohibition on
is independent of
's
provisions.
"If the interpretation is accepted, what is the consequence?"
Ahmadi asked, warning that accepting the plaintiffs' view would mean that ancient temples and mosques lose
protection, while newer places of worship remain protected—a result he said could not have been intended by Parliament.
Ahmadi also highlighted procedural irregularities: the appointed the commissioner without specifying the points for investigation, and the survey was conducted the same day. He pointed to the 's order barring courts from entertaining fresh suits or passing effective orders in cases seeking to reclaim religious places, arguing that the High Court should not have proceeded. The mosque committee also contended that a second survey on , was unauthorized and led to communal violence resulting in six deaths.
The Broader Legal Implications
This case tests the boundaries of the Places of Worship Act, which has become a legal battleground in multiple disputes across India. The 's decision will likely influence pending cases involving similar claims over mosques and dargahs, particularly where ancient monument status is invoked. The Court's approach to the interplay between (substantive prohibition) and (procedural exceptions) will shape the trajectory of future litigation.
Additionally, the issue of survey orders—appointed without notice to the affected party—raises concerns. The mosque committee argued that such surveys are being used as evidence-gathering tools rather than for assisting the court, a practice that could undermine . The 's earlier order maintaining and halting proceedings in the indicates a cautious approach.
Conclusion
As the legal community awaits the 's verdict, the Sambhal mosque dispute underscores the delicate balance between religious freedom, statutory protection of historical places, and procedural fairness. The Court's ruling will not only determine the immediate fate of the survey but also provide critical guidance on how courts should handle similar claims under the Places of Worship Act. With the larger constitutional question already pending before a larger bench, the present judgment may serve as an interim framework until a definitive interpretation emerges.
