On January 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of India took up a significant matter concerning the Sambhal Jama Masjid, located in Chandausi, Uttar Pradesh. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, was hearing a petition filed by the Sambhal Shahi Jama Masjid Committee. This petition challenged an order passed by the Sambhal trial court on November 19, 2024, which had directed the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a survey of the mosque in relation to a suit. The suit, filed by plaintiffs claiming that the mosque was constructed after demolishing an ancient temple, raised concerns about the mosque’s historical and religious status.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the mosque committee, raised a new issue: a notice issued by the Sambhal Nagar Palika (municipality) regarding a well situated near the mosque. The notice referred to the well as “Hari Mandir” (a term associated with Hindu temples), which Ahmadi argued could potentially lead to its use for religious practices such as prayers or bathing by others. This, according to Ahmadi, would disturb the traditional use of the well by the mosque, which had been a source of water for its purposes for generations. Ahmadi expressed concerns that such a development could cause communal tensions in the area.
The bench, while initially questioning whether allowing others to use the well would cause harm, listened carefully to Ahmadi’s concerns. The Chief Justice asked, “What harm is there in allowing others to use it?” as per LiveLaw. However, Ahmadi clarified that allowing its use for religious practices outside the mosque’s control would lead to significant disruptions and could escalate the situation. The bench, taking into account these arguments, issued an order stating that the notice issued by the Nagar Palika should not be given effect. This effectively blocked the municipality’s attempt to alter the status quo regarding the well for the time being. Additionally, the bench scheduled a hearing for February 21, 2025, and directed the parties to file a status report within two weeks.
Court’s continuous concerns over communal harmony and ongoing legal battles
This legal battle surrounding the Sambhal Jama Masjid is not an isolated case but part of a wider trend of disputes over religious sites across India. On January 10, 2025, while addressing the petition, Chief Justice Khanna expressed concerns about the potential for communal tensions in the region, which had already experienced violence in the past. The Court emphasised that peace and harmony must be maintained, and it stressed that it was “keeping a close watch” to ensure that no actions were taken that could disturb the fragile communal balance in the area.
The Supreme Court’s involvement in the case follows earlier hearings and orders. On November 29, 2024, the Court had directed the Sambhal trial court to refrain from proceeding with the suit filed against the mosque until the petition filed by the mosque committee before the Allahabad High Court had been heard. This was a crucial development in the case, as it halted further legal action in the trial court, including the controversial survey, which had the potential to exacerbate communal tensions.
At the same hearing, the bench also ordered that the report prepared by the Advocate Commissioner, who had conducted a survey of the mosque, be kept in a sealed cover. This order was a precautionary measure to prevent the premature release of the report and to safeguard against its misuse in inflaming the situation. Chief Justice Khanna, along with Justice Kumar, made it clear that their primary concern was to maintain neutrality and ensure that no actions were taken that would escalate tensions in the region. The Court highlighted the need for absolute neutrality in such sensitive matters to ensure that peace was maintained.
The involvement of the Uttar Pradesh government, represented by Senior Advocate Colonel (Retd) R. Balasubramanian, was also notable. Balasubramanian assured the Court that the situation in Sambhal was peaceful and that no further issues had arisen. However, Ahmadi, on behalf of the mosque committee, accused the state government of being biased in handling the matter, which further complicated the situation. The Court, while taking note of these concerns, reiterated that its primary focus was to ensure peace and prevent any further aggravation of the issue.
Broader implications of the case and the Supreme Court’s approach
The petition filed by the mosque committee raised several key legal and procedural concerns. One of the central arguments was that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibits the alteration of the character of religious places, barred the suit and the subsequent survey. The committee argued that the trial court’s ex-parte order for the survey was legally invalid because it had been passed without hearing the mosque’s side, thereby violating procedural fairness. The committee contended that such actions could set a dangerous precedent, especially as similar lawsuits and surveys were being initiated at other religious sites across India.
The committee also raised concerns about the pattern emerging in such cases, where plaintiffs with belated claims were seeking surveys of mosques without providing substantial evidence. This, they argued, could inflame communal passions and create law and order problems, undermining the secular fabric of the country. The mosque committee called for the Court to issue directions to prevent the routine issuance of survey orders without proper hearings, as this would contribute to further communal discord and destabilise the region.
In response to these concerns, the Supreme Court adopted a cautious approach, leaving the Special Leave Petition filed by the mosque committee pending. The bench decided to send the matter to the Allahabad High Court for further proceedings, but it made it clear that the trial court should not take any further steps in the suit until the High Court had examined the petition. This decision underlined the Court’s commitment to maintaining peace and neutrality in such sensitive matters, while also ensuring that the legal process was followed in a fair and just manner.
As part of its broader efforts to address communal tensions in the region, the Supreme Court also suggested the formation of a peace committee under Section 43 of the Mediation Act. This committee would aim to facilitate dialogue and foster communal harmony, helping to mitigate tensions and avoid the escalation of conflicts related to religious sites.
The case of the Sambhal Jama Masjid is just one of many high-profile legal disputes involving religious sites in India. In December 2024, the Supreme Court had issued a broader directive preventing lower courts from passing interim or final orders, including survey orders, in cases related to religious structures like the Gyanvapi mosque, the Mathura Shahi Idgah, and the Sambhal Jama Masjid. This directive was part of the Court’s ongoing efforts to prevent the escalation of communal tensions and ensure that these sensitive issues were dealt with in a manner that preserved peace and harmony. (Details can be read here and here.)
The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Sambhal Jama Masjid case reflects its role in balancing legal principles with the need to maintain social order. The Court’s decisions in this case will likely have far-reaching implications for similar cases across the country, particularly those involving religious structures that are at the heart of communal disputes.
Related:
Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque