SC reserves order on Sambhal Jama Masjid survey; 1991 Act cited in plea
The Supreme Court reserved its decision on a mosque survey petition, amid ongoing disputes over religious site ownership and legal protections under the 1991 Act.
On Friday, the Supreme Court reserved its orders on a petition filed by the Sambhal Jama Masjid committee, which disputes a survey of the mosque ordered by a trial court in a 2024 case brought by Hindu plaintiffs. These plaintiffs argue that the mosque was originally a temple. In May 2025, the Allahabad High Court had approved the survey.
The Supreme Court bench of justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard arguments from all parties and the Uttar Pradesh government, which remained neutral. The court emphasized that the lawsuit is still under consideration, with the focus being on the legitimacy of the survey. On November 24, 2024, clashes erupted near the Shahi Jama Masjid following protests against the court-ordered survey of the historic Mughal-era mosque, a claim made by the Hindu side that it was constructed after the razing of a Harihar temple.
The mosque committee, led by senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi and attorney Mohammad Nizam Pasha, argued that the lawsuit is not maintainable under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This Act safeguards the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and does not permit a change in its religious identity.
The additional solicitor general representing the Uttar Pradesh government, KM Nataraj, noted that the case is still in its early stages and the state is committed to protecting the interests of both Hindu and Muslim parties. If the lawsuit seeks to change the status of the place of worship, then the bar on further proceedings will come into effect, according to Nataraj.
The Hindu side, represented by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, contested the appeal, contending that the mosque has been a protected monument since 1920, and thus the 1991 Act does not apply. Jain referenced the Bhojshala case, where the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the site was a Goddess Vagdevi temple. Jain argued that the Supreme Court's decision set a precedent for the High Court to examine this issue, indicating that under certain circumstances, the 1991 Act's prohibition would not be applicable.
Written by urgent.news from Hindustan Times's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
