On 29th November, the Supreme Court of India directed the Sambhal District Court to halt proceedings in the case involving the Shahi Jama Masjid (disputed land) in Chandausi. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, passed the order while hearing the petition filed by the Mosque Committee challenging the survey ordered by the Trial Court. The apex court further ordered the matter to be listed in the Allahabad High Court within three working days. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining peace and harmony during the hearing.
Court directed to keep the survey report in a sealed cover
The Supreme Court further directed that no additional steps should be taken in the suit by the Trial Court. Notably, the Trial Court, on 19th November, ordered a survey of the Jama Masjid in Sambhal based on claims made by petitioners, including Hari Shankar Jain and others, that it was built after demolishing the Hari Har Temple in the 1500s. The apex court further ordered that the survey report by the Advocate Commissioners be kept in a sealed cover and not opened unless directed otherwise.
The Chief Justice emphasised the communal sensitivity of the matter and remarked, “Peace and harmony have to be maintained. We don’t want anything to happen… we have to be absolutely, totally neutral and ensure nothing wrong is done.”
Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain appearing for respondents
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) November 29, 2024
CJI (to ASG KM Nataraj for District Administration): We don't want to say anything at this stage. We will keep it pending. But please see that peace and harmony is maintained. We have to be absolutely neutral.#SupremeCourt
High Court action mandated
The court further clarified that while it was not disposing of the matter, the Mosque Committee must approach the Allahabad High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for relief. The court order read, “We feel that the petitioner must challenge the order dated 19.11.2024 in an appropriate forum. In the meantime, peace and harmony must be maintained,” the order stated.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi represented the Mosque Committee in the Supreme Court. He argued that the Trial Court passed the order for the survey ex-parte and did not hear the opposing side. He claimed that the order had caused significant apprehensions among the local population. Ahmadi claimed there would be larger implications and said, “The modus operandi is the same across various cases – surveys are ordered on the first day itself without hearing the defendants. Such orders can create great mischief.”
Responding to his argument, CJI Khanna observed, “We may have some reservations on the order, but is it not amenable to Article 227? You have to approach the appropriate forum.”
Arguments reflect contrasting positions
Supreme Court Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain represented the respondents in the matter. Notably, Advocate Jain is also representing the respondents in the Sambhal District Court, where they filed the petition leading to the survey of the disputed structure. Advocate Jain informed the Supreme Court of India that the Trial Court proceedings were scheduled for 8th January 2025. The court acknowledged it and orally directed, “No further steps in the suit without the permission of the High Court. The Trial Court will not take any steps till 8th January.”
Ahmadi: 10 suits pending across country…modus operandi is on first day only, surveyor is appointed. Please stay…
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) November 29, 2024
CJI: No further steps in the suit without permission of HC. TC will not take any steps till 8th January#SupremeCourt #SambhalJamaMasjid
Advocate Ahmadi urged the apex court to stop the filing of the Advocate Commissioner’s report and expressed concerns over its potential “misuse”. However, the CJI declined the request and stated that the report would remain in a sealed cover but could not be entirely prevented from being filed. The apex court’s order read, “The report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner will be kept in a sealed cover and will not be opened.”
CJI: The report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner will be kept in sealed cover and not be opened.#SupremeCourt #SambhalJamaMasjid
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) November 29, 2024
Background of the case
On 19th November, a court-mandated survey was conducted at Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. The court ordered the survey in response to a petition filed by Supreme Court Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, and seven co-plaintiffs, asserting that the mosque occupies the site of a temple dedicated to Bhagwan Kalki. The site in question is a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1904. The survey was carried out under the supervision of Advocate Commission. A heavy police force was deployed in the area to ensure the survey proceeded peacefully.
However, on 24th November, during the second round of court-mandated survey at Jama Masjid, Islamist mobsters gathered outside the mosque and engaged in violence. They pelted stones at police, opened fire at police personnel and set ablaze vehicles and shops. At least 20 police personnel were injured during violence and four mobsters were killed in the mayhem, likely from illegal guns carried by rioters.
In the aftermath of the Sambhal violence on 24th November, police have clarified that the deaths of three individuals occurred due to firing by rioters, not by the police. Post-mortem reports revealed that two victims were shot with country-made pistols, while the a 315-bore bullet was found inside the body of another victim, a type not used by Uttar Pradesh Police. Sambhal SP Krishna Kumar Bishnoi stated that the police initially fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the mob but were fired upon by rioters.
During the survey, however, Muslims living in the area gathered outside the Jama Masjid and raised religious slogans. The District Magistrate of Sambhal confirmed that the survey was completed in around two hours and stated that a report would be submitted to the Civil Court, which will review it on the next date of hearing, 29th November 2024. OpIndia accessed the petition filed by the plaintiffs in the case.
OpIndia’s detailed report on petition filed at the court can be checked here.
