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:

Jaunpur’s Atala mosque has moved HC against local court order directing filing of suit claiming it was ‘ancient Hindu temple’

Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

The post Supreme Court blocks execution of Nagar Palika’s order regarding well near Sambhal Mosque, prioritises peace and harmony appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This stay effectively halts any judicial action that could disturb public harmony or prejudice the resolution of the issues at hand. By freezing all proceedings, the court has ensured that the sensitive subject of religious places is dealt with calmly and with the utmost judicial oversight.

The order also addressed the delays in filing responses by the Union of India, noting that despite the issuance of notice as early as September 9, 2022, no counter affidavit or reply had been submitted. The court directed the Union to file its reply “within four weeks from today,” emphasising the need for timely compliance. The court also directed for the copies of the reply are to be served to all petitioners and respondents, who may file their rejoinders within four weeks of receiving it.

To facilitate the coordination of documents and arguments in this multi-party case, the court appointed Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain as Nodal Counsel for those challenging the validity of the Act and Mr. Ejaz Maqbool for those supporting its enforcement or opposing the challenges. Additionally, Mr. Kanu Agarwal was designated as the Nodal Counsel for the Union of India, responsible for creating and maintaining a Google Drive link to upload the Union’s affidavit, which will be shared with all relevant parties. The court also established a shared email ID to streamline the exchange of pleadings, directing, “All the Nodal Counsel will have access to the said email ID to facilitate coordination.”

The court’s order reiterated its earlier framing of legal questions on October 12, 2022 regarding the scope and application of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act, which prohibit the alteration of religious character and nullify ongoing legal challenges to the status of places of worship as they stood on 15 August 1947. It noted that additional issues have arisen during the hearings and that the primary questions relate to “the contours, as well as the width and expanse of the said provisions.” The case is now scheduled to be heard next on February 17, 2025.

This order marks a decisive moment in the legal proceedings, as the Supreme Court’s stay prevents any disruptive developments while maintaining a controlled and coordinated process for addressing the constitutional challenge to the 1991 Act. It underscores the court’s commitment to safeguarding communal harmony and judicial decorum in one of the most sensitive and significant cases of our time.

(Detailed report on the judicial proceedings of December 12, 2024 can be read here.)

The complete order may be read below:

Intervention applications reflect broad stakeholder interest

Notably, recently, more intervention applications in the matter have also been filed by various prominent parties and individuals, reflecting the broad interest and stakes involved in the litigation. These include the Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee, Maharashtra MLA Dr. Jitendra Satish Awhad from the Nationalist Congress Party (Socialist), the Communist Party of India (Marxist), represented by Mr. Prakash Karat, Member of the Politburo, the Mathura Shahi Idgah Masjid Committee, and Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha. These interventions highlight the diverse perspectives and communal sensitivities surrounding the constitutional challenge to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, underscoring its far-reaching social and political implications. These interventions highlight the diverse perspectives and communal sensitivities surrounding the constitutional challenge to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, underscoring its far-reaching social and political implications.

1. Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee’s intervention

The Gyanvapi Mosque Managing Committee had filed an intervention before the Supreme Court, asserting its critical stake in the legal deliberations concerning the 1991 Act. The committee argued that multiple suits have been filed seeking the mosque’s removal, despite the clear bar imposed by Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, which preserve the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947.

Highlighting the far-reaching implications of declaring the Act unconstitutional, the committee stated that such a decision would have “drastic” consequences. It expressed concern that the Act’s misinterpretation had already led to legal challenges against several mosques and dargahs across the country, including the Gyanvapi Mosque. As per the report of LiveLaw, the committee emphasised: “The applicant is constrained to intervene in the present proceedings as a misreading/misinterpretation of the 1991 Act, and the salutary reasons for which it had been enacted, is being sought to be diluted by filing of suits against Mosques and, even before issues are struck, seeking interim directions for survey of the Mosques or an ASI inspection.”

The application referenced recent instances where ex-parte interim orders were issued by district courts, including orders allowing a survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque and the Sambhal Jama Masjid, as examples of how the 1991 Act is being undermined. (The detailed report on Sambhal violence may be read here, here and here.)

Additionally, the committee invoked the doctrine of non-retrogression, which the Supreme Court had discussed in the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple Case. It argued that under this principle, the State has a “non-derogable obligation” to uphold the country’s commitment to secularism as enshrined in the Constitution. The committee emphasised that any weakening of the 1991 Act would represent a step backward in protecting the secular fabric of the nation.

2. Indian Union Muslim League’s intervention

The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), represented by its General Secretary and Kerala MLA PK Kunhalikutty along with Lok Sabha MP ET Muhammed Basheer, had filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court in the ongoing challenges to the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The IUML’s intervention underscores the importance of the Act in safeguarding secularism and religious freedoms for all faiths in India. The application emphasises that secularism has been recognised as a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, thus rendering the Act immune from any amendments by Parliament.

The IUML’s application, as per LiveLaw, highlights the Act’s dual purposes, both of which are crucial for preserving public order and harmony. Firstly, the Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship, ensuring that the religious character of such places is not altered. Secondly, the Act imposes a positive obligation on the State to maintain the religious character of every place of worship as it stood on August 15, 1947, the date when India became an independent, democratic, and secular nation. The application underscores that this date is pivotal, marking the emergence of India as a modern State with no official religion and providing equal rights to all religious denominations. As the application states: “This August 15, 1947 is crucial because on that date this nation was emerged as a modern, democratic and sovereign State thrusting back such barbarity into the past once and for all.”

Further, the IUML stresses that the 1991 Act is instrumental in fostering unity, peace, and mutual respect among India’s diverse religious communities. The application also draws attention to recent incidents in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, as a stark reminder of the need for such legislation. The IUML contends that if the Act had been properly enforced, incidents like the one in Sambhal, which resulted in the tragic loss of six lives, could have been prevented. The increasing number of suits concerning places of worship, the IUML argues, is exactly the type of issue the 1991 Act was designed to address. As they assert, “The mushrooming of suits concerning places of worship is precisely the mischief sought to be curtailed by the introduction of this impugned Act.”

Through its intervention, the IUML advocates for the continued preservation of the Act, highlighting its critical role in maintaining communal harmony and upholding the secular values enshrined in India’s Constitution.

3. Jitendra Satish Awhad’s Intervention

Dr. Jitendra Satish Awhad, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Mumbra-Kalwa and a representative of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), had filed an intervention in the Supreme Court proceedings challenging the 1991 Act. Awhad’s application underscored the Act’s crucial role in preserving secularism, promoting communal harmony, and preventing the tensions that could disrupt national unity.

Drawing from the historical context of his constituency, Awhad highlighted that Mumbra-Kalwa became a refuge for those displaced by the 1992-93 Bombay riots, which had caused significant social and physical divides between communities. Over time, efforts have been made to rebuild trust and unity among the diverse communities in the region. Awhad warned that any dilution of the 1991 Act could jeopardise these efforts, potentially unravelling the progress made in fostering peace.

Awhad’s intervention further stresses the historical importance of the Act, especially in the immediate aftermath of India’s independence when the country faced significant religious and communal strife. He noted that the Act reflects Parliament’s considered response to these concerns, aiming to stabilise the nation and promote cohesion by preventing disputes over religious sites that could destabilise public order and communal harmony. As per LiveLaw, his application states that “There exists a clear and reasonable nexus between the Act’s prohibition on altering the religious character of places of worship and its overarching objective of fostering national unity and integrity.”

Awhad’s application has been filed through AoR Anas Tanwir and is drawn by Advocates Neha Singh and Ebad Ur Rahman. Additionally, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has also intervened in the case, supporting the constitutionality of the Act and its role in safeguarding India’s secular fabric.

4. Communist Party of India (Marxist) intervention

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)), represented by Mr. Prakash Karat, Member of the Politburo, had filed an Intervention Application before the Supreme Court. The CPI(M) strongly advocates for the Act’s critical role in preserving India’s secular fabric by preventing any alteration to the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. This prohibition is central to ensuring the communal harmony and national cohesion that the Act was designed to uphold.

In its application, the CPI(M) underscores the Act’s importance in preventing conflicts rooted in historical disputes, arguing that its legislative intent is crucial in maintaining peace and preventing further strife. The party also emphasises that the Act safeguards the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 21 (right to life and liberty), and 25 (freedom of religion) of the Indian Constitution, ensuring equality, non-discrimination, and the freedom of all citizens to practice their religion without fear of interference or alteration.

The CPI(M) further warns that any attempt to repeal or alter the Act would undermine these constitutional principles, posing a threat to secularism and the rule of law, both of which are foundational to India’s democratic framework. The application highlights the growing number of litigations challenging the religious character of various places of worship, including mosques and dargahs. Referring specifically to recent cases involving the Sambhal Mosque and the Ajmer Dargah, the CPI(M) asserts that such cases “intend to destabilise the legislative intent and constitutional mandate enshrined in the Act,” warning that this “relentless wave of litigation” threatens to erode India’s secular values.

5. Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha’s intervention

Manoj Kumar Jha, a Member of Rajya Sabha representing the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), had also moved an intervention application before the Supreme Court. In his submission, Jha argues that the 1991 Act is fully aligned with the Indian Constitution and promotes its core values, especially the commitment to secularism and equality for all religions.

The application, filed through Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil, asserts that the Act does not contravene any fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Instead, it strengthens the constitutional tenets by protecting the religious character of places of worship as they existed on 15 August 1947. Jha emphasises that the Act serves as a legislative guarantee, ensuring that these places of worship are preserved by the State, in line with the nation’s secular commitments.

As Jha’s application states, the 1991 Act is critical to upholding the Preamble of the Constitution and Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), and 51A (fundamental duties). It underscores the secular obligations of the State and India’s pledge to treat all religions equally, reaffirming the Act’s constitutional validity. According to the report of LiveLaw, the application asserts, “There is no need for the top Court to intervene or ground to declare the Act unconstitutional,” stressing that the legislation is essential for maintaining national unity and preserving the secular fabric of the country.

In his application, Jha also draws attention to the rise of sectarian politics, which has intensified in recent times. He warns that the increasing weaponisation of religion and the polarisation of communities pose significant threats to constitutional values. He adds, “The recent incidents of weaponising religion, polarising communities and fostering a divisive agenda is creating repercussions where dissent and diversity face increasing threats,” thus reinforcing the need for the 1991 Act to prevent such divisiveness and preserve India’s secular ideals.

Related:

When the Supreme Court directed protection for the Gyan Vapi Mosque, upheld the Places of Worship Act, 1991 (1994, 1995, 1997)

UP: After Gyanvapi, Mathura Court Orders Shahi Idgah Survey; ‘Violation’ of Places of Worship Act, Say Activists

When and How Ram Vilas Paswan made a strong pitch for the Places of Worship Act, 1991

“Temple restoration” suits on the rise; what about the Places of Worship Act?

The post Supreme Court issued stay on suits on survey against religious places, interventions had highlighted the Act’s intent to preserve India’s secular character appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court judgment on the Babri mosque dispute case upheld this law, even directing that its sections must be seen as part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The PWA is and was an important legislative measure for ensuring lasting peace then, now and in future. The act of demolition of Babri was declared as a crime in the November 2019 judgement which also opined that there was no evidence of a temple below the mosque.

An  article in SabrangIndia  says “A top-notch archeologist, Prof Supriya Varma, who served as an observer during the excavation of the Babri Masjid site in early 2000s along with another archeologist, Jaya Menon, has controversially stated that not only was there “no temple under the Babri Masjid”, if one goes “beyond” the 12th century to 4th to 6th century, i.e. the Gupta period, “there seems to be a Buddhist stupa.”

At the time of demolition led by the extreme Hindu right wing, slogans were violent and threatening. The mob that climbed on to the mosque shouted “Yeh to kewal Jhanki hai, Kashi Mathura Baaki Hai” (This is just the beginning, Kashi; Mathura will be next). Some years ago the issue of both Kashi (Gyan Vapi Masjid) and Mathura (Idgah) was brought to the fore for “surveying”, despite the Places of Religious Worship Act, 1991 being in place. Ironically, Justice Chandrachud, himself one of the autthors of the Babri-Ayodhya judgement, opened the floodgates for future “disputes” by opining that the mere prayer of a survey below an existing place of worship is not prevented by the Act!! He added that Hindus have the “right to know the ancestry of the place.” Through this cynical wordplay, the Supreme Court itself allowed those perpetrating a distorted history, to gain legitimacy.

These forces, which had previously claimed that if the three shrines at Ajodhya, Kashi and Mathura are given to them, they will close their demands for other places of Hindu worship (lying under mosques) were not to be deterred by their own assurances. Currently, over 12 cases for survey are pending in the courts. Other issues like Kamaal Maula moque, Baba Budan Giri Dargah, Haji Malang Dargah and many more mosques areal so being pursued for claims by Hindus. There is a long list. As Sambhal Jama Masjid came under hammer, the centuries old Ajmer Dargah is also being claimed by Hindu Sena, which has sprung up to claim more and more sites to be given over to Hindus.

In these cases some doubtful documents are highlighted. In many of these the role of British officials is notorious, for example Mrs. Beevridge in translation of Babarnama,puts a footnote stating without any evidence that there might have been a temple underneath the mosque. There have been numerous examples of distorting history and multiple reasons for destroying temples, plundering wealth, humiliating the rival king being the main.

If we go a bit back in history the major cause of destroying Buddhist Vihars was religion. Swami Vivekananda shared the fact that, “The temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and re-Hinduised them…”. Swami Dayanand Saraswati while describing the contribution of Shankaracharya in his tome, Satyarth Prakash wrote: “For ten years he toured all over the country, refuted Jainism and advocated the Vedic religion. All the broken images that are now-a-days dug out of the earth were broken in the time of Shankar, whilst those that are found whole here and there under the ground had been buried by the Jainis for fear of their being broken.”

According to the Buddhist narrative of ancient Indian history the last of Maurya dynasty’s Buddhist king (Ashoka being one), Brihadratha was assassinated by Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin in 184 BCE thus ending the rule of a renowned Buddhist dynasty and establishing the rule of Shunga dynasty. DN Jha, outstanding ancient Indian historian, referred to Divyavadana, a Buddhist Sanskrit work from the early centuries which described how Buddhist and Jain religious places were destroyed by Pushyamitra Shunga, a great persecutor of Buddhists.

“He is said to have marched out with a large army, destroying stupas, burning monasteries and killing monks as far as Sakala, now known as Sialkot, where he announced a prize of one hundred dinars for every head of a Shramana (opposed to Vedas).”

Jha tells us that at Mathura, a flourishing town in western Uttar Pradesh during the Kushana period, some present-day Brahminical temples, such as those of Bhuteshwar and Gokarneshwar, were Buddhist sites in the ancient period.

History which has today been made the part of popular common sense is the one propagated by Hindu nationalist forces, simply because of the force of their organisation and resources. The roots of this lie in the British policy of ‘divide and rule’ which promoted Communal Historiography. In this the kings are presented as representatives of their religion. The focus is mainly on the medieval period where many Muslim kings ruled. During this period many temples were plundered for wealth and many others were demolished to humiliate the defeated kings.

What is forgotten and erased from memory is that even a ruler like Aurangzeb gave donations to Hindu temples (Kamakhaya Devi temple and Mahakal temple in Ujjain, being few of them) and Hindu Kings like Raja Harshdev appointed a special officer (Devottapatan Nayak) to plunder the wealth of temples (Kalhan, Rajtarangini). Maratha kings destroying a temple in Srirangpanam are ignored, this narrative swept under the carpet. During this period religion had very little role to play unlike the post Mauryan Period when to wipe out Buddhism, Buddha Viharas were destroyed.

Indian polity and judiciary have opened a Pandora’s Box which is deepening religious divides in the society. What is the need of the hour? To search for temple underneath every mosque or to build the ‘temples of Modern India’ as defined by Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, “while starting the construction of the Bhakra Nangal Dam to describe scientific research institutes, steel plants, power plants, dams being launched in India after independence to jumpstart scientific and industrial progress.”

The direction that India chooses will define its destiny.

Related:

Rising Tensions: Muslim Religious Sites face renewed attacks, demand for survey in Delhi’s Jama Masjid and Hanuman Chalisa

Safeguarding our shrines

How the Ajmer Shrine Brings Alive the Spirit of Ramzan & Islam

The post Sambhal Mosque, Ajmer Dargah: how deep do we plunge into the abyss? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Hindu group demands survey of Jama Masjid, Delhi

The Hindu Sena’s national president, Vishnu Gupta, has written to the director general of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), demanding an investigation into the origins of Delhi’s Jama Masjid. Gupta alleges that the iconic mosque, commissioned by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan and completed in 1656, was constructed on the ruins of Hindu temples from Jodhpur and Udaipur, which were supposedly destroyed by Aurangzeb. He further claims that idols of Hindu deities were incorporated into the mosque’s structure, with some intentionally buried under the stairs to disrespect Hindu religious sentiments. Calling for a detailed survey, Gupta insists that the mosque’s “true history” must be unearthed and any remnants of the alleged temples preserved and publicly disclosed.

In his letter, Gupta wrote that “alleged Jama Masjid, Delhi was constructed after demolition of hundreds of temples of Jodhpur and Udaipur, and using the remains of those temples including the idols of deity in the stairs of said mosque to humiliate the Hindus by Mughal invader Aurangzeb.”

Vishnu Gupta called for the preservation of any remains found during the survey and insisted that these findings be made public to reveal the true history of the mosque, and stated that “your office is requested to survey the Jama Masjid, Delhi so that the idols of our deities can b preserved and concrete steps can be taken to install them in the temple and the truth about Aurangzeb can be revealed to the world.”

The ASI has not commented on the matter so far.

Jama Masjid, also known as Masjid-i Jehan-Numa, is among the largest and most celebrated mosques in India, renowned for its architectural grandeur. Constructed with red sandstone and white marble, it can host 25,000 worshippers in its vast courtyard and remains a central religious, cultural, and tourist destination. Its majestic gates, domes, and minarets have long stood as symbols of India’s rich architectural legacy and pluralistic history. However, claims such as those made by Gupta, often unsupported by concrete evidence, risk undermining this legacy by injecting communal narratives into heritage discussions.

This demand for a survey is part of a broader pattern of targeting Muslim religious and cultural sites under the pretext of historical revisionism. Such actions, often driven by ideological motivations rather than genuine scholarly inquiry, have the potential to disrupt communal harmony. They create unnecessary fissures in a society already grappling with sensitive interfaith dynamics, converting spaces of shared cultural pride into arenas of discord.

Details of the other Mosques against which petitions for survey are pending may be referred to here.

Repeated attempts to discredit Muslim heritage sites not only foster mistrust but also distract from more pressing societal challenges. These narratives risk polarising public opinion, encouraging disharmony, and eroding the spirit of coexistence that forms the foundation of India’s secular identity. These attacks by the far-right organisations do not only remain limited to courts, but also extend to creating chaos in the society.

Students recite Hanuman Chalisa near campus Mosque, Varanasi

Tensions flared at Uday Pratap College in Varanasi on Tuesday as hundreds of students gathered near a mosque on campus and recited the Hanuman Chalisa. This provocative act followed a large gathering of Muslims offering namaz at the mosque on Friday, reigniting a longstanding controversy over the ownership of the land on which the mosque is situated. The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board had, six years ago, claimed the mosque and adjoining land as Waqf property. However, the college rejected the claim, asserting that the entire campus belonged to an endowment trust. Principal D.K. Singh reiterated this position, stating the Waqf Board’s claim had been invalidated.

The situation escalated on Tuesday despite significant police presence, including senior officers, Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), and barricades aimed at preventing students from approaching the mosque. The students managed to break through the security enclosures, chanting “Jai Shri Ram” as they marched towards the mosque. Although ACP (Law and Order) S. Chinappa attempted to dissuade the students, they persisted, ultimately reciting the Hanuman Chalisa from a distance, according to DCP (Varuna Zone) Chandrakant Meena.

The Waqf Board clarified that its December 2018 notice claiming the mosque and surrounding land as Waqf property was cancelled in January 2021. In a letter responding to the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid committee, the board’s law officer, Abdul Mobin Khan, confirmed the revocation of the notice issued under Section 36(7) of the Waqf Act, 1995. The notice, initially issued on the basis of claims by Varanasi resident Wasim Ahmed Khan, had alleged the land was donated by the Nawab of Tonk. The college, however, maintained that the mosque was illegally constructed and that the trust-owned property was not for sale or transfer.

Principal Singh also recalled an earlier dispute in 2022 when an attempt by the Waqf Board to build a mosque on the campus was stopped following a police intervention. Despite the Waqf Board’s clarification, the issue resurfaced in 2024, prompting renewed tensions and confusion. The Anjuman Intezamia Masajid committee’s joint secretary, S.M. Yasin, welcomed the board’s prompt response, expressing relief that the matter had been resolved.

While the ownership issue appears legally settled, the students’ act of reciting the Hanuman Chalisa near the mosque highlights a worrying trend of using religious symbolism to assert dominance and provoke tensions. Such actions, under the guise of cultural expression, risk undermining social harmony and inflaming communal divisions. The ability of the students to bypass security despite heavy police deployment raises questions about enforcement and the motives behind such organised displays. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the need for responsible engagement on sensitive religious matters, especially in a diverse and pluralistic society like India.

Related:

Right wing’s assault on mosques intensifies: UP Court to hear petition on Budaun’s Shamsi Shahi Mosque amid growing trend of similar targeting of minority shrines

Supreme Court urges UP government to maintain peace and harmony in Sambhal, prohibits the trial court from taking any further steps till January

Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh

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

The post Rising Tensions: Muslim Religious Sites face renewed attacks, demand for survey in Delhi’s Jama Masjid and Hanuman Chalisa appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Based on the hearing, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar decided to keep the petition filed by the Shahi Jama Masjid Committee pending. However, the Court directed the Masjid Committee to first approach the High Court to challenge the trial court’s order directing a survey of the mosque. In its order, the Supreme Court prohibited the trial court from taking any further steps in the matter until January 8, and unless the High Court hears the appeal. The Court also instructed that the survey report prepared by the Advocate Commissioner be kept sealed and unopened until further notice. This decision was made to ensure procedural fairness and avoid any escalation of tensions in the region, highlighting the Court’s focus on preserving peace and maintaining neutrality in a highly sensitive issue.

Emphasis on preservation of peace and neutrality

During the hearing, a bench underscored the need for peace and harmony in Sambhal District. Addressing the Uttar Pradesh administration, the bench stated: “Peace and harmony must be preserved. We must act with complete neutrality and ensure no harm is caused.”

The Supreme Court placed a specific emphasis on the Uttar Pradesh government’s responsibility to maintain communal harmony in the district. It suggested forming mediation committees to help de-escalate tensions and ensure that all parties feel heard in the process.

Details of the proceedings

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the mosque committee, argued that the trial court’s decision was capable of causing “great public mischief” and noted a concerning pattern across multiple cases nationwide. He pointed out that in such cases, the appointment of surveyors on the very first day of filing has become a “modus operandi,” which requires urgent judicial intervention.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, heading the bench, acknowledged that the trial court’s order could be challenged under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and the Constitution. He stated, as per LiveLaw, that “We may have some reservations, but the petitioner must challenge the order before the appropriate forum.” The CJI further clarified that since the order was not appealable under Order 41 of the CPC, a first appeal could not be filed.

The CJI expressed the Court’s intent to maintain peace and harmony in Sambhal District, stressing neutrality in handling the sensitive issue. He remarked, “We are not going into the merits. We don’t want anything to happen in the meantime. Peace and harmony must be preserved. We have to be absolutely, totally neutral and ensure nothing untoward happens.” Addressing the Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the Uttar Pradesh district administration, the CJI emphasised, “We will keep this matter pending, but peace and harmony must be maintained in the meantime.”

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the respondents, informed the Court that the trial court proceedings were scheduled for January 8, 2025. Ahmadi, in response, urged the Supreme Court to prevent any further steps in the trial court, emphasising the urgency of staying proceedings.

The Supreme Court, in its detailed order, stated that no further steps in the suit would be taken by the trial court without the High Court’s permission. The bench directed that the trial court proceedings remain on hold until January 8, 2025. Additionally, it instructed the respondents and district authorities to maintain peace and suggested forming mediation committees to ensure harmony. The Court also clarified that if the petitioners filed a revision appeal before the appropriate forum, it should be listed within three working days.

In summing up, the Supreme Court reiterated its trust in the district administration and judiciary to ensure neutrality and prevent any escalation of communal tensions. The Court also noted that the trial court must await directions from the High Court before proceeding further. The CJI’s remarks and directives underscored the need to handle the issue with caution, fairness, and a commitment to maintaining public order.

Gist of the Supreme Court’s directives

1. Trial court proceedings: The trial court was directed not to proceed with the case until January 8, 2025, or until the High Court provides further directions.
2. Survey report: The report prepared by the Advocate Commissioner was ordered to be kept in a sealed cover and remain unopened until further instructions.
3. Appeal listing: If the Masjid Committee files a revision appeal before the High Court, the Court directed that it must be listed within three working days to ensure timely resolution.
4. Neutrality and harmony: The Supreme Court emphasised the need for the Uttar Pradesh government and district administration to act with absolute neutrality and ensure communal harmony is preserved in the region.

The Supreme Court’s decision to keep the petition pending demonstrates its intent to closely monitor the situation while ensuring procedural compliance. The case will likely hinge on the High Court’s evaluation of the Masjid Committee’s petition. Meanwhile, the trial court proceedings are frozen, and the Advocate Commissioner’s report remains sealed.

The Court’s directives also highlight the judiciary’s careful balancing act in communal matters, prioritising peace and neutrality while ensuring that legal challenges follow due process. The next developments are expected in January 2025 when the trial court proceedings are scheduled to resume, subject to High Court directions.

This case reflects the ongoing tension between legal claims over historical sites and the imperative to maintain public order, with the judiciary serving as a critical arbiter in these disputes.

Background of the case

The controversy began when the Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Sambhal issued an ex-parte order directing a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Chandausi. The plaintiffs claimed that the mosque was constructed by Mughal emperor Babar in 1526 after demolishing a temple that previously stood at the site. The survey order, however, led to unrest in the area, reportedly resulting in the deaths of four individuals.

The Masjid Committee, represented by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, challenged the trial court’s decision on multiple grounds. The committee argued that the survey was conducted in “undue haste” without providing the mosque’s representatives an opportunity to present their case. It contended that the order violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibits the alteration of the character of religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947. Furthermore, the committee pointed out that the Shahi Jama Masjid is a protected ancient monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

Ahmadi also argued that such ex-parte orders, which immediately appoint court commissioners, are becoming a “modus operandi” in similar cases across the country, often leading to public mischief.

Detailed reports on Sambhal may be read here and here.

Related:

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Rajasthan HC finds no caste intent in words like ‘Bhangi’, ‘Neech’, ‘Bhikhari’, ‘Mangani’, drops SC/ST Act charges

The post Supreme Court urges UP government to maintain peace and harmony in Sambhal, prohibits the trial court from taking any further steps till January appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This tragedy is not just about the lives lost but also about the failure of those tasked with protecting lives and maintaining order. The administration insists it used “minor force” to quell the protests, but eyewitness accounts and on-ground visuals tell a different story—one of heavy-handedness, tear gas, pellet guns, and a disregard for measured restraint. Instead of calming tensions, the police’s actions escalated the violence, turning a fragile situation into a full-blown disaster. Families of the deceased, already reeling from grief, are now grappling with the knowledge of the state, which should have protected their loved ones, may have caused to their deaths.

While officials insist that gunfire originated solely from the protesters, autopsy reports indicating deaths caused by .315 bore firearms undermine this assertion and cast doubt on the legitimacy of their account.

गोली चलाओ, मारो-मारो…भो&&& वालों को

सोचिए वर्दी के पीछे छिपी ये मानसिकता कानून या न्याय कैसे कर सकती है?

स़भल म़े एक पुलिस वाले को सुनिए pic.twitter.com/ZbCGa6fDqB

— Nigar Parveen (@NigarNawab) November 24, 2024

The premature and unprovoked lathi charges seen in other videos only added fuel to the fire. Peaceful protesters, raising slogans with no evidence of stone-pelting, were subjected to indiscriminate violence by law enforcement. These actions turned what could have remained a peaceful demonstration into a violent confrontation, marking a failure of the police to fulfil their primary duty of maintaining order without escalating tensions.

#Sambhal, UP:
Video 1) Sambhal SP Krishan Kumar Bishnoi claims “bheed ke kuch log achanak galiyo me se nikalker aaye aur unhone police per pathrav kiya”.

Video 2) Protestors can be seen raising slogans and not a single stone was pelted yet the police resorted to lathicharge.… pic.twitter.com/4xB06vQYMu

— Saba Khan (@ItsKhan_Saba) November 24, 2024

Sambhal, a district with a long-standing reputation for communal harmony, now stands fractured and traumatised. This devastating episode highlights systemic failures at multiple levels: an administration that rushed into action without adequate preparation, a police force that abandoned the principles of restraint and accountability, and a judicial system whose hasty orders acted as a spark in a tinderbox. As the dust settles, the scars left behind by the violence in Sambhal will serve as a grim reminder of how easily institutional failures can upend lives, disrupt communities, and tarnish the very fabric of democracy.

#WATCH | Uttar Pradesh: Visuals from Sambhal where an incident of stone pelting took place when a survey team arrived at the Shahi Jama Masjid to conduct a survey of the mosque. Police used tear gas to control the situation.

Following a petition filed by senior advocate Vishnu… pic.twitter.com/jW6RO6L27Q

— ANI (@ANI) November 24, 2024

Reacting immediately and sharply to the violence, a day after the results to nine by-polls in the state, including the Sambhal seat were declared, Member of Parliament and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav also criticised the Uttar Pradesh state government, alleging that the BJP had orchestrated the violence to divert attention from electoral malpractices and governance failures. Yadav has urged the Supreme Court to take immediate cognisance of the situation, calling for an independent investigation into the incidents. By-polls in UP had taken place on November 20.

“The conspiracy to spread tension in the name of a mosque survey cannot go unchecked. The BJP government and its administration orchestrated this violence to deflect attention from their political manipulations and failures,” Yadav said.

He described the police actions as disproportionate and part of a broader strategy by the BJP to create polarisation for political gain. Yadav emphasised that the BJP had no interest in genuine conflict resolution and instead sought to use communal tension to strengthen its political narrative.

सर्वे के नाम पर तनाव फैलाने की साज़िश का ‘सर्वोच्च न्यायालय’ तुरंत संज्ञान ले और जो अपने साथ सामाजिक सद्भाव बिगाड़ने के उद्देश्य से नारेबाज़ों को ले गये, उनके ख़िलाफ़ शांति और सौहार्द बिगाड़ने का मुक़दमा दर्ज हो और उनके ख़िलाफ़ ‘बार एसोसिएशन’ भी अनुशासनात्मक और दंडात्मक कार्रवाई… pic.twitter.com/9Fj30K4aLm

— Akhilesh Yadav (@yadavakhilesh) November 24, 2024

संभल में शांति की अपील के साथ ही ये भी अपील है कि कोई भी इंसाफ़ की उम्मीद न छोड़े। नाइंसाफ़ी का हुक्म ज़्यादा दिन नहीं चलता सरकार बदलेगी और न्याय का युग आएगा। pic.twitter.com/XE99C72zw9

— Akhilesh Yadav (@yadavakhilesh) November 24, 2024

Fatalities and injuries raise alarm

The district of Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh descended into violence on Sunday, November 24, after a court-ordered survey of the Mughal-era Jama Masjid escalated into violent clashes. By the morning of November 25, the death toll had risen to five, though Moradabad Divisional Commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh officially acknowledged only four. He revealed that one family neither informed the police nor submitted the body for autopsy, raising concerns over transparency and accountability in the administration’s handling of the crisis.

Among the deceased were Naeem (Kot Kurvi locality), Bilal (Sarai Tareen), and Numan (Hayat Nagar), their families grieving the loss of loved ones amidst a turmoil that, many argue, could have been avoided. Injuries from the clashes were widespread, with reports indicating that 20 police personnel, including senior officers, sustained injuries. Officials claimed these injuries resulted from “miscreant gunfire,” but widespread public scepticism has arisen due to video evidence showing police firing live ammunition.

A tragic reflection of police mismanagement and deep contradictions

The tragic events in Sambhal, where five individuals lost their lives and scores were injured, expose a troubling pattern of administrative failure and blatant contradictions in the actions and narratives of law enforcement. What should have been a peaceful legal procedure—a court-ordered survey of a mosque—devolved into chaos, violence, and death. The cracks in the police’s official account, highlighted by eyewitness testimony and video evidence, paint a picture of a deeply flawed approach that not only failed to prevent violence but actively exacerbated it.

The spark for the unrest was a sudden petition claiming that the Jama Masjid stood on the site of a Harihar temple, prompting a court to order an immediate survey, without giving a hearing to the other side (Mosque Committee). The survey nevertheless took place with the local community cooperating fully. Tensions had been simmering since the initial survey earlier in the week. On Sunday, as the survey team arrived, flanked by police and other officials, the situation escalated. According to police accounts, crowds of protesters began gathering near the mosque, shouting slogans and allegedly hurling stones. Divisional Commissioner Singh described the scene as a “coordinated attack” on the police and survey team, alleging that three separate groups launched assaults from different directions. Police officials, including Superintendent of Police Krishna Kumar Vishnoi, claimed to have used only “minor force” to disperse the crowd, including tear gas and lathi charges. However, these claims fall apart under scrutiny when juxtaposed with the evidence emerging from the ground.

The police, has been silent on the questioning and deeply troubling presence of unauthorised individuals accompanying the survey team and chanting the polarising slogan “Jai Shri Ram.” In today’s fraught socio-political climate, this chant, while religious for some, has become a symbol of majoritarian aggression. For it to resound during a legally sensitive survey of a disputed mosque was not only inflammatory but deeply irresponsible. These individuals, unauthorised to participate in the survey process, actively inflamed tensions, turning what should have been a neutral court-directed operation into a spectacle of intimidation. The administration’s failure to restrain them reflects a troubling bias and raises critical questions: Who allowed these individuals to accompany the team, and why was their inflammatory behaviour permitted in an already charged environment?

जब सर्वे करने जा रहे थे तो ये नारेबाज़ी क्यूं हुई?
क्या कोर्ट का आर्डर था कि जय श्रीराम का नारा लगाते हुए जाएं?
साफ़ दिख रहा है कि उद्देश्य भड़काना था। #Sambhalpic.twitter.com/xD4JMD3eBT

— Tarun Gautam (@TARUNspeakss) November 24, 2024

Social media is awash with disturbing videos that directly challenge the police narrative and point to excessive use of force. One particularly harrowing clip shows riot-gear-clad officers cornering individuals in narrow smoke-filled alleys, firing indiscriminately with live rounds, raising serious concerns about the proportionality of the police response. Another video captures officers pulling individuals from a peaceful protest and beating them with batons, despite there being no visible provocation. Such scenes starkly contradict police claims of restraint and raise pressing questions about accountability.

In another video, which is a drone footage of the Sambhal violence shot during the survey being conducted by the team of advocate commissioner, a cleric could be heard requesting the mob, vandalising a car parked near the mosque, to disperse.

Drone footage of the Sambhal violence shot during the survey being conducted by the team of advocate commissioner. A cleric could be heard requesting the mob, vandalising a car parked near the mosque, to disperse. pic.twitter.com/ja45VOqisK

— Piyush Rai (@Benarasiyaa) November 25, 2024

The videos, eyewitness testimonies, and the administration’s actions expose the glaring disconnect between the police’s claims and the reality on the ground. They paint a damning picture of an institution unprepared and unwilling to uphold its duty of impartiality and restraint. Sambhal’s tragedy is a grim indictment of law enforcement’s failure to protect lives and ensure fairness, leaving deep scars on a community already grappling with distrust and fear. This incident underscores an urgent need for accountability and systemic reform, lest such tragedies continue to erode the very fabric of justice and democracy.

In view of these contradictions, District Magistrate Manish Pensiya’s statements about maintaining “communal harmony” ring hollow when juxtaposed with the state’s heavy-handed approach. The administration’s failure to anticipate the volatile situation, despite clear signs of tension in the days leading up to the survey, reveals a glaring lack of foresight and preparation. 

Jama Masjid in Chandausi: A heritage monument caught in the crossfire

The Jama Masjid in Chandausi, located in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district, is not just a religious edifice but a nationally recognised heritage monument. Declared a “protected monument” under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1904, it has held this status since December 22, 1920. The mosque, prominently featured on the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) Agra Circle website, represents architectural brilliance and historical significance. Yet, this symbol of India’s shared cultural legacy is now at the centre of a highly contentious legal and communal battle.

Allegations that the mosque was constructed over the ruins of an alleged Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Harihar have placed it under a spotlight fraught with historical revisionism, legal dilemmas, and communal discord. The claim, rooted in assertions that the temple was destroyed by Mughal Emperor Babur in 1529, has been amplified by a petition filed by eight individuals, several of whom have a history of involvement in contentious disputes over religious sites. Their demands range from recognising the mosque as a temple to permitting Hindu worship at the site.

This case raises significant concerns about the preservation of heritage, judicial accountability, and the ethical responsibility of maintaining communal harmony. One can say that the legal proceedings surrounding the Jama Masjid reflect an erosion of procedural fairness, with decisions appearing to prioritise political expediency over historical or legal integrity.

The judicial response and its fallout: The controversy deepened when, on November 19, 2024, Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aditya Singh issued an immediate directive to survey the mosque based on the petitioners’ claims, without serving notice or hearing the other side. Within hours, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, and a survey was ordered to include videography and photography. While ostensibly aimed at determining the mosque’s historical foundations, this decision has been criticised for its unprecedented speed and lack of procedural safeguards.

Key issues surrounding the court’s response include:

1. Bypassing procedural norms: The court did not provide adequate time for the mosque committee, ASI, or other stakeholders to respond to the allegations. The hurried survey order—issued on the same day the petition was filed—raises questions about judicial neutrality and accountability, especially in a case involving a monument of national importance.
2. Contravention of monument protection laws: The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, strictly prohibits unauthorised surveys, excavations, or alterations to protected sites. The court’s directive, issued without explicit approval from the ASI, undermines these protections and sets a potentially dangerous precedent.
3. Most questionably, the order defied the basics of natural justice as it did not hear the Mosque Committee before passing the order.
4. Encouraging polarising agendas: By validating the claims of the petitioners without substantial evidence, the judiciary inadvertently bolstered narratives that aim to communalise historical monuments. Such actions risk normalising attempts to reinterpret historical legacies through a divisive lens.
5. Judicial overreach: The judiciary’s role as an impartial arbiter appears compromised in this instance. The extraordinary haste with which the survey was ordered has led to widespread scepticism about the court’s motivations, further eroding public trust in its independence.

It is essential to that the individuals behind the petition include figures like Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, known for his involvement in controversial and high-profile disputes such as the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath case. Their claims, often rooted in unverified assertions of historical wrongs, form part of a larger pattern aimed at reclaiming purported Hindu heritage sites. The said strategy is less about historical accuracy and more about advancing a communal agenda that deepens societal divides. The broader implications of such cases are profound, the present one can even call it violence as a consequence of judicial haste. They risk transforming judicial processes into tools for majoritarian politics, undermining the secular fabric of the Constitution. In recent times, there have been repeated cautions against using history as a battleground for contemporary disputes, but these warnings seem increasingly unheeded in the current climate.

Opposition criticises UP government over Sambhal violence, alleges conspiracy

The violence in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal district has drawn sharp criticism from opposition leaders, who have accused Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and the ruling BJP government of orchestrating unrest under the guise of conducting a court-ordered mosque survey. Congress and Samajwadi Party leaders have described the incident as a deliberate attempt to incite communal tensions and destabilise the region’s long-standing harmony.

Congress terms it a “well-planned conspiracy”: Congress leader Pawan Khera condemned the Sambhal violence in unequivocal terms, calling it a “well-planned conspiracy” by the Yogi Adityanath-led government. Khera, Chairman of the Media and Publicity Department of the All India Congress Committee (AICC), accused the state administration of fostering a climate of fear and violence.

“No citizen in Uttar Pradesh is ‘safe’ under CM Adityanath, who gave the reprehensible slogan of ‘Batenge toh Katenge’ (Those who divide will die). This is evident from the deplorable incidents in Sambhal today,” Khera said in a strongly worded statement.

Referring to widely circulated videos of police allegedly firing at protesters, Khera argued that these visuals reveal the “horrifying result of a well-planned conspiracy” by the BJP and RSS. He claimed the violence in Sambhal was orchestrated to fracture the communal harmony of western Uttar Pradesh, a region historically known for its peace and goodwill.

Khera went further, alleging that the BJP government had no intention of resolving the mosque dispute in a just or peaceful manner. “In this entire matter, the BJP neither wanted the survey to proceed nor to stop it; its sole objective was to destroy harmony,” he asserted.

The Congress leader further accused the BJP of perpetuating hatred and systematically targeting minority communities, calling the Modi-Yogi administration a “double-assault government” that considers minorities as second-class citizens.

Khera criticised the judiciary’s role, stating that the court’s order for an immediate survey of the mosque came without giving the mosque committee or local Muslim leaders a fair hearing. He claimed that this rushed decision was a deliberate strategy by the government to provoke unrest.

“It is public knowledge that the court ordered an immediate survey without hearing the other side. No action was taken against the rioters who accompanied the survey team, making it clear that the Yogi government has intensified the politics of violence and hatred post the state by-elections,” Khera remarked.

Khera also invoked Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s campaign against divisive politics, urging the people of Sambhal to reject hatred. “Rahul Gandhi has continuously spoken about ‘Nafrat Ke Bazaar Mein Mohabbat Ki Dukaan’ (spreading love in a marketplace of hatred). In this spirit, I appeal to the people of Sambhal to maintain unity, amity, and harmony while legally protecting their rights,” he said.

Our statement on the tragic and avoidable riots in Sambhal:

संभल में हुए दुखद एवं परिहार्य दंगों पर कांग्रेस पार्टी का वक्तव्य: pic.twitter.com/uOpKjYbw8g

— Pawan Khera (@Pawankhera) November 24, 2024

Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra also took to ‘X’ to share their displeasure on the manner in which the UP government handled the situation.

संभल, उत्तर प्रदेश में हालिया विवाद पर राज्य सरकार का पक्षपात और जल्दबाज़ी भरा रवैया बेहद दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण है। हिंसा और फायरिंग में जिन्होंने अपनों को खोया है उनके प्रति मेरी गहरी संवेदनाएं हैं।

प्रशासन द्वारा बिना सभी पक्षों को सुने और असंवेदनशीलता से की गई कार्रवाई ने माहौल और…

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) November 25, 2024

संभल, उत्तर प्रदेश में अचानक उठे विवाद को लेकर राज्य सरकार का रवैया बेहद दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण है। इतने संवेदनशील मामले में बिना दूसरा पक्ष सुने, बिना दोनों पक्षों को विश्वास में लिए प्रशासन ने जिस तरह ​हड़बड़ी के साथ कार्रवाई की, वह दिखाता है कि सरकार ने खुद माहौल खराब किया। प्रशासन ने…

— Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (@priyankagandhi) November 25, 2024

A broader pattern of state-endorsed violence: Both opposition parties have pointed to a recurring pattern in the BJP’s approach to governance in Uttar Pradesh, accusing the Yogi administration of fostering communal divisions as a political tool. Khera and Yadav highlighted how incidents like the violence in Sambhal have become disturbingly frequent, where minorities bear the brunt of state actions.

Khera stated that the BJP government has intensified its communal agenda following recent by-elections, further eroding trust between communities. “The BJP is guilty of setting fire to the peace and harmony of Sambhal. Their communal politics is a calculated attempt to keep society fractured and polarised,” Khera argued.

The opposition’s critique of the Sambhal violence has raised serious questions about the handling of the incident by the state government. Both Congress and the Samajwadi Party have demanded accountability from the Yogi administration and a fair inquiry into the events leading to the violence.

With videos and eyewitness accounts contradicting police narratives, the demand for an impartial investigation is gaining traction. Meanwhile, the incident has further polarised an already charged political environment, with the opposition accusing the BJP of prioritising its communal agenda over the welfare and safety of the state’s citizens.

Sambhal District under strict restrictions amid post-riot tensions

In the wake of the recent violent clashes during the court-mandated mosque survey, authorities in Sambhal district have implemented stringent measures to restore order and prevent further unrest. The district administration has imposed prohibitory orders, restricted movement of outsiders, suspended internet services, and issued a series of directives to curb potential threats.

As per multiple media news, the Sambhal District Magistrate has issued a formal notification barring the entry of external individuals, social organisations, or public representatives into the district without prior approval. The notification, dated October 1, 2024, and referenced as order number 942/Judicial Assistant/Section-163/2024, aims to contain the volatile situation in the region.

“A prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Indian Citizens Security Code, 2023, has been imposed in Sambhal district and will remain effective until November 30,” the circular states. It further specifies, “No external person, social organisation, or public representative will be allowed to enter the district without the explicit permission of the competent authority. Violating this order will be treated as a punishable offence under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”

The directive underscores the urgency of maintaining order and preventing external influences from exacerbating the fragile situation. Officials have emphasised that the order is integral to the overarching prohibitory measures implemented in early October and is to be enforced immediately.

In addition to this, internet services across the district have been suspended for 24 hours. The temporary shutdown is intended to curb the spread of misinformation, inflammatory content, and the organisation of disruptive activities through social media platforms.

In a parallel move, the district administration has issued strict prohibitions on the possession or collection of materials that could be used as projectiles or weapons. A notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) explicitly bans citizens from purchasing or stockpiling stones, soda bottles, or any flammable or explosive substances.

The notice warns of strict action against violators, including legal penalties. To reinforce this measure, local municipal authorities have been directed to confiscate construction materials, such as loose bricks or debris, found lying on roads or in public areas.

Detentions and targeted legal actions: As per the UP police statement, the district police have intensified their operations to identify and detain individuals involved in Sunday’s violent clashes. According to the Superintendent of Police, around 20 individuals have been taken into custody so far. These arrests follow allegations of stone-pelting and acts of violence that occurred during the controversial survey of the mosque. The officials have announced plans to charge those detained under the National Security Act (NSA). While law enforcement claims this is necessary to deter future violence, many view it as an overreach designed to intimidate dissenters. The administration has also issued warnings against spreading rumours, threatening legal action against anyone found inciting unrest through social media.

Law enforcement officials have assured the public that further arrests will follow as investigations progress. The local administration has also deployed additional police forces in sensitive areas to maintain peace and deter further incidents. Yet, these measures fail to address the fundamental questions of police misconduct and administrative failure. By focusing solely on punitive actions against protesters, the state has sidestepped its responsibility to investigate its own role in escalating the violence.

Police defence

The deaths in Sambhal, including that of Naeem, have become a flashpoint of conflicting narratives between law enforcement and the victim’s family. Naeem’s parents have accused the police of fatally shooting their son, arguing that his death was the result of unwarranted police firing. Divisional Commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh, however, vehemently denied the allegations, stating that police injuries sustained during the clashes make it implausible for officers to have been the aggressors. “Police cannot shoot at themselves,” Singh asserted, referencing the injuries suffered by law enforcement, including the SP’s Public Relations Officer, who was shot in the leg, and other officers who sustained pellet wounds and fractures. Singh also attempted to deflect blame onto Naeem’s family, stating, “It was the responsibility of the family members to restrain their son if he was planning to throw stones.”

Superintendent of Police (SP) Krishna Kumar Bishnoi added to the official narrative, maintaining that the police employed only pellet guns for crowd control during the clashes.

In one video of SP Krishan Kumar, he can be seen using a loudspeaker to urge the alleged stone-pelters not to indulge in violence.

“Do not spoil your future for these politicians,” he is heard saying through his megaphone in one of the videos.

“नेताओं के चक्कर में अपना भविष्य बर्बाद मत करो” @sambhalpolice
संभल में पथराव और आंसू गैस छोड़ने के बाद हालात बेकाबू, एक गाड़ी में लगाई आग, शांति व्यवस्था की की जा रही अपील। #SambhalJamaMasjid pic.twitter.com/4wksw3zpN4

— Awanish M Vidyarthi (@awanishvidyarth) November 24, 2024

Despite these official accounts, Singh painted a broader picture of chaos, claiming, “There were three groups who were firing at each other. We have evidence, but our priority right now is to restore peace.” This assertion seeks to shift attention away from the police and onto unidentified groups allegedly involved in the violence. Yet, this explanation does little to address the critical question of how Naeem and others sustained gunshot wounds if the police only used pellet guns and tear gas.

#WATCH | Uttar Pradesh: Sambhal DM Rajender Pensiyia says “The survey has been completed. The survey team have been safely taken out. The situation is being brought under control. Strict action will be taken against mischievous elements. No one will be spared.” https://t.co/fsngBQoyfC pic.twitter.com/7RvLNNERKA

— ANI (@ANI) November 24, 2024

Meanwhile, Singh confirmed to PTI that several police personnel had sustained injuries, including the PRO (Public Relations Officer) of the SP, who had been shot in the leg. Additionally, the police circle officer was struck by pellets, a constable suffered a severe head injury, and the deputy collector sustained a fractured leg. Singh’s emphasis on the injuries to police personnel served to bolster the administration’s stance that the violence originated from the protesters, not the authorities.

The conflicting statements from law enforcement officials, combined with the autopsy findings and eyewitness accounts, create a troubling narrative. The administration’s insistence on the protesters’ culpability is sharply contradicted by emerging evidence, including visual records of officers firing live rounds in smoke-filled streets. Singh’s comments, such as suggesting families “restrain” their loved ones, have been widely criticised as attempts to deflect accountability. These discrepancies, coupled with the police’s refusal to address these contradictions transparently, have only deepened public distrust and magnified calls for an independent investigation to establish the truth behind the tragic events in Sambhal.

An uncertain path ahead

As Sambhal grapples with the aftermath of Sunday’s clashes, the district remains on edge. The closure of schools and markets reflects a community paralysed by fear and uncertainty. While the administration insists it is working to restore normalcy, its actions have done little to inspire confidence. The incident in Sambhal is a stark reminder of the volatile interplay between legal disputes over religious sites and the state’s handling of communal tensions. It also underscores the urgent need for accountability in law enforcement, especially in sensitive situations where lives are at stake. Until these issues are addressed, legally and constitutionally, incidents like these will continue to mar the state’s fragile social fabric.

Related:

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Rajasthan HC finds no caste intent in words like ‘Bhangi’, ‘Neech’, ‘Bhikhari’, ‘Mangani’, drops SC/ST Act charges

The post Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force appeared first on SabrangIndia.