Supreme Court: Sambhal Jama Masjid Survey Challenge Decision Reserved

• The Supreme Court has reserved its order on a plea challenging the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey the Sambhal Jama Masjid.
• The Sambhal Jama Masjid Committee argues the mosque is exempt from such proceedings under Section 4(3)(a) of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, due to its protected monument status.
• Senior Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain presented evidence, including a 1920 notification, declaring the mosque a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904.
• The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by ASG K.M. Nataraj, focused on the interpretation of the Places of Worship Act, suggesting its applicability depends on the specific pleadings and relief sought.
• The case involves allegations that the mosque was built after the demolition of a Hindu temple, with the survey intended to investigate these claims.

This ruling could set a significant precedent for future disputes involving historical religious structures and the limits of judicial intervention in such matters.

The Supreme Court has reserved its decision on a significant plea filed by the Sambhal Jama Masjid Committee, which challenges the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner tasked with surveying the mosque. This legal action stems from an ex-parte order issued by a trial court, subsequently affirmed by the Allahabad High Court, to conduct a survey amid allegations that the mosque was constructed following the demolition of a Hindu temple.

The bench, comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, heard detailed arguments from both sides before reserving its order. The proceedings at the lower court are currently at a preliminary stage, with the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner being the primary action taken thus far. The outcome of this Supreme Court Sambhal Jama Masjid survey challenge is keenly awaited, as it will determine the immediate future of the survey and potentially influence the broader legal discourse surrounding such disputes.

A central point of contention in the case revolves around the applicability of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and specifically whether the Sambhal Jama Masjid qualifies for an exemption under Section 4(3)(a) of this Act, which pertains to ancient monuments. Senior Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the Sambhal Jama Masjid Committee, argued that Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the Act impose a statutory bar on initiating proceedings concerning the religious character of places of worship.

Jain contended that the Sambhal Jama Masjid falls squarely within the ancient monuments exemption Places of Worship Act, citing a notification from November 18, 1920, which declared the monument protected under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. This notification explicitly listed the 'Jumma Masjid' among protected sites and prohibited its destruction, removal, defacement, or any construction nearby without government permission. This protection was further confirmed by an order dated December 22, 1920, and Jain traced the monument's legislative history through subsequent ancient monuments legislation enacted in 1951 and 1958, asserting that its protected status has been continuously maintained under the evolving statutory regime.

Conversely, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, informed the Court that the State preferred not to engage in the factual controversies between the private parties. He emphasized the State's obligation to protect the religious rights of all involved, irrespective of the dispute's outcome. Nataraj focused on interpreting Section 3 of the Places of Worship Act, which prohibits the conversion of a place of worship, noting that Section 2(b) defines "conversion" to include any alteration or change. He suggested that the Act's applicability hinges on the specific pleadings and relief sought in the suit. While acknowledging the broader question of "religious denomination" under Section 3, currently pending before a Constitution Bench, Nataraj submitted that these complex issues need not be resolved at the present nascent stage of the Sambhal Jama Masjid Advocate Commissioner proceedings.

The Supreme Court's forthcoming order in the Sambhal Jama Masjid survey challenge is poised to offer critical interpretation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This ruling will be particularly significant for clarifying the scope and application of the 'protected monuments' exemption under Section 4(3)(a), a provision that has been central to the arguments presented. The decision could establish a vital precedent for how future disputes involving historical religious structures are adjudicated across the country.

This ruling could set a significant precedent for future disputes involving historical religious structures and the limits of judicial intervention in such matters. It will provide crucial guidance on the extent to which preliminary actions, such as appointing an Advocate Commissioner for a survey, can proceed when the protected status of a religious site is invoked. The outcome will be closely watched by legal professionals and compliance officers, as it has the potential to reshape the landscape of legal challenges concerning ancient religious monuments.

Lawyers and compliance officers should closely monitor the Supreme Court's forthcoming order, as it will provide critical interpretation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, specifically regarding the scope of the 'protected monuments' exemption under Section 4(3)(a). This ruling could set a significant precedent for future disputes involving historical religious structures and the limits of judicial intervention in such matters.

Source: Original reporting via legal news reports