The legal and communal dispute over the Shamsi Shahi Mosque in Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, has once again brought the contentious issue of historical and religious claims over Mosques by far-right organisation into the spotlight. The mosque, revered as an architectural and cultural heritage site, stands accused by the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha of being built on the ruins of a Neelkanth Mahadev temple. This claim, which dates back to a petition filed in 2022, has been accepted by the Uttar Pradesh court as maintainable now. The decision has added fuel to an already volatile communal environment, raising critical concerns about the weaponisation of religious history and its consequences on India’s social fabric.
Advocate Vivek Render, representing the Hindu petitioners in the Budaun Mosuqe dispute case, asserted that “solid evidence” substantiates their claim that the mosque occupies land that historically belonged to a Hindu temple. The petitioners are demanding the right to perform religious rituals at the site and the right to access. In response, the Masjid Intezamia Committee, supported by the Waqf Board, has categorically denied the allegations, arguing that the mosque’s 850-year-old history is well-documented and devoid of any such association with a temple. The Muslim side invoked Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, which bars suits that are legally untenable, highlighting the lack of merit in the petition and calling it a deliberate provocation.
The controversy comes amidst heightened communal tensions following violent clashes in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, where five people were killed and several, including police personnel, were injured. The confusion and lack of clear communication from authorities created a fertile ground for misinformation and panic, ultimately culminating in violence. Many have pointed out that such incidents expose systemic failures in governance, where administrative actions on sensitive issues are mishandled, and exacerbating mistrust between communities. (Detailed reports on Sambhal violence can be read here, here and here.)
Further compounding the issue, a similar dispute has surfaced in Rajasthan’s Ajmer, where a civil suit claims that a Shiva temple exists within the premises of the dargah of Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti. Together, these cases reflect a troubling pattern of revisiting historical grievances to stir communal unrest. While the petitioners argue that their efforts aim to restore historical justice, detractors contend that these litigations are less about historical accuracy and more about advancing a political agenda that exploits religious sentiments.
The dispute on Shamsi Shahi Mosque
The Shamsi Shahi Mosque dispute in Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, has escalated after a fast-track court accepted a petition claiming that the mosque was built over a historic temple dedicated to Neelkanth Mahadev. The petition was filed in August 2022 by the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha and seeks permission to offer prayers at the Neelkanth Mahadev temple, alleging that the site originally housed the temple before the construction of the mosque.
The Shamsi Shahi Mosque, built on an elevated area known as Sotha Mohalla, is one of the oldest and most significant mosques in India. It is the third oldest existing mosque in the country and the seventh largest, with a capacity to accommodate 23,500 people. The mosque is considered a historical and architectural landmark in Budaun town, often referred to as the highest structure in the area.
The petitioner’s advocate, Vivek Render, argued in court that the temple existed at the site before the mosque was built. The petitioners have presented evidence in support of their claims and insist that the Hindu community should be allowed to worship at the temple as it was done in earlier times. They have also stated that the court should grant them permission to offer prayers at the site, claiming historical precedence.
On the other hand, the Masjid Intezamia Committee and the Waqf Board, representing the mosque’s interests, strongly contested the claims. Advocates Anwar Alam and Asrar Ahmed, representing the mosque, argued that the petition should be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows the rejection of a plaint if the case is barred by law. They further stated that the Hindu Mahasabha had no right to file such a petition, emphasizing that the Shamsi Shahi Mosque is over 850 years old and there is no evidence supporting the existence of a temple at the site.
The court proceedings, which have now entered a critical phase, were to be held today, but were adjourned to December 10, 2024. The implications of the Budaun Mosque dispute are far-reaching. Increasing number of people are arguing that the legal system is being increasingly used as a battleground for communal polarisation, with courts being inundated with cases that are often more symbolic than substantive. The selective invocation of archaeological and historical narratives is seen as a strategy to rally specific voter bases, particularly ahead of elections, rather than a genuine pursuit of historical truth. Observers also point to the strain these cases place on judicial resources, diverting attention from more pressing societal issues.
Moreover, the broader socio-political environment makes the timing of these disputes particularly troubling. The violence in Sambhal serves as a stark reminder of how quickly communal harmony can disintegrate when religious identities are weaponised. The lack of transparent communication from authorities and the spread of misinformation have created an atmosphere where faith becomes a flashpoint for violence rather than a source of unity.
The Shamsi Shahi Mosque case, therefore, is not just about a legal claim to land but also a reflection of the deeper fault lines in Indian society. The court’s role in such matters must extend beyond the procedural to acknowledge the potential for broader societal repercussions. Without a firm commitment to evidence-based adjudication and a cautious approach to handling sensitive cases, there is a risk of turning courts into arenas for communal contestation rather than instruments of justice.
Petitions filed in Supreme Court to curb lower courts from entertaining religious structure disputes
Amid a surge in claims challenging the origins of historical religious structures, a series of petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court, urging it to prohibit lower courts from admitting cases that seek surveys or challenge the status of age-old places of worship. The petitions highlight how such disputes not only contravene the Places of Worship Act, 1991, but also risk exacerbating communal tensions across the country.
One of the key cases prompting this legal response is the recent petition accepted by Ajmer’s West Civil Court, which claims that the Ajmer Sharif Dargah, a historic site of spiritual and cultural significance, was originally a Sankat Mochan Mahadev temple. The court’s decision to entertain this claim has raised alarms among legal experts, civil rights organisations, and community leaders. Petitioners in the Supreme Court argue that these cases are legally untenable under the Places of Worship Act, which explicitly prohibits the alteration of the religious character of any place of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947, with the sole exception of the Babri Masjid case.
The petitioners, which include Congress leaders Alok Sharma and Priya Mishra and All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), have requested the Supreme Court to issue clear directives to district and sessions courts, barring them from admitting cases that aim to revisit the status of established religious sites. They contend that the lack of judicial consistency in handling such claims has emboldened a wave of disputes targeting mosques and dargahs, leading to unnecessary polarisation and threats to public order. Petitioners in the Supreme Court have also referenced the escalating violence linked to these disputes, including the November 2024 incident in Sambhal. A survey team’s arrival at the Shahi Jama Masjid led to chaos and violence, leaving five people dead and dozens injured. These incidents, the petitioners argue, underscore the urgent need for judicial intervention to prevent further destabilisation.
The petitions in the Supreme Court call for decisive action to prevent the judicial system from being misused to fuel communal polarisation. The petitioners have sought an order directing all state governments to comply with the Places of Worship Act and refrain from executing any lower court orders that mandate surveys or otherwise violate the Act. They have also called for strict guidelines to ensure that any claims targeting historical religious structures are summarily dismissed.
As per media report, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has described the trend of such petitions as a blatant violation of constitutional principles and an affront to the rule of law. The report of the Indian Express provided that AIMPLB spokesperson S.Q.R. Ilyas criticised the judiciary for allowing these disputes to proliferate, warning that continued inaction could lead to widespread unrest. The Board has also highlighted the potential consequences of politicising historical grievances, which they argue are being weaponised to disrupt interfaith harmony.
The petitioners have emphasised that the Supreme Court’s intervention is critical to maintaining the country’s secular and pluralistic fabric. They argue that a failure to act decisively would not only undermine the Places of Worship Act but also embolden fringe elements to exploit the judiciary for political and communal gains. As tensions rise, the petitions seek to remind the judiciary of its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and ensure that justice is not derailed by divisive agendas.
Demands and legal grounds of these petitions: The petitioners have collectively sought the following reliefs-
- Prohibition on new claims- The petitioners have asked the Supreme Court to issue a directive barring district and sessions courts from admitting petitions that question the religious character of any place of worship, as protected under the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
- Guidelines for compliance with the POW Act- They have requested clear instructions to all state governments to comply strictly with the provisions of the Act and to refrain from executing any orders issued by lower courts that contravene its principles.
- Stay on surveys and investigations- The petitions also call for an immediate stay on ongoing surveys and investigations ordered by lower courts, such as those in Sambhal and Ajmer, arguing that these actions violate the legal protections enshrined in the 1991 Act.
- Accountability for judicial overreach- The petitioners have questioned the lack of judicial consistency in applying the Places of Worship Act, urging the Supreme Court to ensure that lower courts do not undermine its intent.
List of pending legal disputes over Muslim religious sites
- Teele Wali Masjid, Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) – A civil suit filed in 2013 claimed that Teele Wali Masjid was built over a Hindu temple on Laxman Teela. Despite challenges under the Places of Worship Act, 1991, courts allowed the case to proceed. Recent appeals by the mosque management, including challenges to suit maintainability, were rejected. The Allahabad High Court has sought replies in this ongoing dispute.
- Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque, Qutub Minar (Delhi) – In 2020, a suit alleged the mosque was built using ruins from 27 Hindu and Jain temples during Qutub-Din-Aibak’s reign. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) opposed prayers for worship revival, citing legal protection of the monument. The civil court dismissed the case under the Places of Worship Act, and the appeal remains pending before the Additional District Judge.
- Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) – Originating in 1991, the dispute alleges the mosque was constructed after demolishing the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Significant developments include claims of a shivlinga found in 2022 and orders for an ASI survey, with the Supreme Court maintaining the status quo for both Hindu and Muslim rituals. Various suits continue before the Varanasi District Court, with applications for consolidation pending in the Supreme Court.
- Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque (Madhya Pradesh) – This ASI-protected site is contested as a temple of Goddess Saraswati by Hindus and a mosque by Muslims. In 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered a scientific survey, while the Supreme Court barred any physical excavation to maintain the site’s character. Further proceedings are pending.
- Atala Masjid, Jaunpur (Uttar Pradesh) – Claims suggest the mosque replaced an Atala Mata temple by Feroze Shah Tughluq’s orders. Legal proceedings continue in the Agra courts.
- Shahi Eidgah Masjid, Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) – Disputes over the mosque, alleged to be built on Lord Krishna’s birthplace, intensified in 2021 with challenges to a 1968 compromise agreement. The Allahabad High Court is hearing consolidated suits, and the Supreme Court stayed a commissioner’s inspection order pending further proceedings.
- Jama Masjid, Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh) – A 2024 suit alleged that the mosque replaced a Kalki temple, leading to a court-ordered survey. Violence ensued, resulting in casualties. The Supreme Court stayed proceedings and sealed the survey report while awaiting High Court review.
- Jama Masjid and Dargah, Fatehpur Sikri (Uttar Pradesh) – Suits filed in 2024 claim that Sheikh Salim Chishti Dargah and the adjacent mosque were built over Hindu temples. Notices have been issued, and hearings are ongoing.
- Ajmer Sharif Dargah (Rajasthan) – A 2024 suit alleged the Dargah was originally a Shiva temple. Notices were issued to the involved parties, with hearings set for December.
- Taj Mahal, Agra (Uttar Pradesh) – Allegations in 2022 that the Taj Mahal was a Shiva temple (Tejo Mahalaya) were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, with the Supreme Court affirming the decision, calling the petition “publicity interest litigation.”
- Dharhara Mosque and Lat Bhirav Mosque, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) – In June 2022, five persons had filed a petition in the court of civil judge (junior division) Akash Verma to seek rights of worshipping at the Dharhara Mosque, also known as the Alamgir Mosque, which is an important historical Mosque located in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners had alleged that the Mosque was built on the demolished Bindu Madhav temple by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb with Kashi Vishwanath temple and converted it into a mosque in the name of Dharahara, which is now an ASI protected monument. An adjacent Mosque, by the name of Lat Bhirav Mosque, is also on the target of the right-wing Hindu groups.
Opposition deems these claims as attempts to create disorder in the country
The National Conference (NC) voiced its strong condemnation of the growing trend of petitions being filed across India seeking surveys of mosques and Muslim shrines. In a statement, Showkat Mir, the NC’s provincial president for Kashmir, expressed serious concern about the influx of such petitions, warning that they could have far-reaching consequences for the country’s peace and harmony.
As per a report of the Greater Kashmir, Mir highlighted that the recent petition calling for a survey of the revered shrine of Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer Sharif has deeply hurt the sentiments of millions of devotees worldwide. He noted that the shrine holds immense spiritual significance, drawing pilgrims of all faiths and nationalities each year. “The shrine stands as a powerful symbol of unity and diversity, embodying the spirit of India’s pluralistic traditions,” Mir stated as per the report.
Furthermore, Mir criticised individuals who, through their actions, seek to disrupt the harmony of the nation by making baseless claims about the historical origins of religious sites. He specifically pointed out the petition regarding Ajmer Sharif, which asserts without evidence that a temple lies beneath the dargah. Mir lamented the judiciary’s decision to entertain such claims, stating that it shows a lack of understanding of Ajmer’s rich heritage of peaceful coexistence and mutual respect.
Mir further explained that the development and preservation of the Ajmer Sharif dargah is a shared legacy, with contributions from both Muslim rulers and Hindu kings over centuries. He warned that the destruction of historical mosques and other sacred structures as part of such claims only serves to foster division and discord within society.
Calling for a united front against these divisive efforts, Mir underscored the importance of protecting the sanctity of religious sites and preserving India’s historical traditions that have fostered communal harmony. He urged the nation not to allow unsubstantiated assertions and divisive actions to undermine the social fabric built on mutual respect and coexistence.
Mir also drew attention to the legal framework protecting places of worship, specifically the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. He explained that Section 4 of the Act prohibits any alteration to the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947. He emphasised that this legislation is critical in maintaining communal harmony and protecting the secular ethos enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Referencing the landmark M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhoomi Temple) vs. Suresh Das judgment of 2019, Mir noted that the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act. The Court, he stated, affirmed that the Act plays a pivotal role in preserving India’s diverse heritage and safeguarding its secular principles. He further highlighted that the Court recognised the Act as a safeguard against the misuse of historical claims for political or religious ends. Mir, while concluded, called upon all citizens to remain vigilant against attempts to disrupt the harmony of the nation. He urged collective efforts to protect sacred sites, preserve India’s shared history, and uphold the unity that forms the cornerstone of the country’s strength.
On December 3, Samajwadi Party MP Akhilesh Yadav spoke in Parliament on the Sambhal violence, saying the incident was part of a “well-planned conspiracy”. He said the narrative of excavations in mosques, allegedly created by the Bharatiya Janata Party which is governing the UP state as well as in the centre, would destroy the brotherhood in the country.
Prior to this, on December 2, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge deplored the attempts to rake up more claims of temples at the sites of mosques and said such acts were against the Places of Worship Act of 1991 and reminded the BJP that it had supported that legislation in Parliament. As per media reports, addressing a rally in New Delhi organised by SC-ST-OBC-Minorities NGOs on protecting the Constitution, Kharge said: “They have started a new thing. And in every place, the surveyors are going, saying this was a temple earlier and how it has become a mosque. In order to maintain the1947 status quo of all religious places, a law was made in 1991, the Places of Worship Act. Yet, why are you then raking up these disputes“.
Congress MP Imran Masood also spoke to ANI and said that the Supreme Court should take cognisance of the matter related to lower courts allowing surveys at religious places. He emphasised that the apex court must put an end to such claims or else it would lead to anarchy in the country.
On November 28, the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) also released a statement on stopping legal disputes on religious places. In its statement, the CPI(M) said “The decision of a civil court in Ajmer, Rajasthan, to entertain a petition seeking a survey of the Ajmer Sharif Dargah to ascertain if there was a temple beneath it, is unwarranted and has no legal standing. It goes against the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which decrees that no legal dispute can be raised on a religious place that existed prior to August 15, 1947.
The violation of this Act has already resulted in the flawed decision with regard to the survey of the masjid in Sambhal, that has led to violence and the death of five persons.
The Supreme Court must immediately intervene to put an end to such legal proceedings in line with the Places of Worship Act, which the Court itself had upheld in the Ayodhya judgment of 2019.”
Related:
Uttarakhand: Despite BJP Govt Assurance to Contrary in HC, Hindu Mahapanchayat Held in Uttarkashi
Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque