Sambhal mosque survey: SC asks Shahi Jama Masjid management to approach Allahabad HC, tells trial court to halt proceedings

The bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the mosque management committee, which sought an ex-parte ad-interim stay on the operation of the November 19 trial court order.

Appearing for the mosque management committee, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi urged the bench to stay the trial court order but the bench declined the request. “No. We are saying that no further steps in the suit without the permission of the High Court. That’s all. Move the High Court,” the CJI said.

“We are told that the matter is fixed before the trial court on January 8, 2025. We hope and trust that the trial court will not proceed with the matter till the matter is listed before the High Court and any further proceedings will be in terms of the order passed,” the bench said.

Security has been stepped up in Sambhal. (Express Photo)

The court also directed that if the advocate commissioner appointed by the trial court to conduct the survey submits any report, it shall be kept in sealed cover and not be opened.

“In case any revision/ appeal/ miscellaneous petition is preferred before the appropriate forum, the same would be listed within a period of three working days after it is filed,” the bench said.

“In the meanwhile, peace and harmony must be maintained,” it said, and recorded the assurance of Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K M Nataraj to this effect.

“We don’t want to say anything at this stage. But peace and harmony must prevail… this should not happen. You have to be absolutely, totally neutral and ensure that nothing goes wrong,” the CJI said in oral remarks.

“We are taking care of it…We do not want any untoward incident to happen on account of all these things,” the ASG, who appeared for the district administration, responded.

At the outset, the bench told Ahmadi that “we may have some reservations on the order but that is no ground to entertain” the appeal directly without first challenging it before the HC.

“The better course will be that we will keep this Article 136 (plea) pending because we want peace and harmony. We don’t want any disturbance. In the meanwhile, you file whatever remedy is available to you. Till then, let the trial court not take any further action,” the bench said.

As Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing one of the Hindu petitioners, tried to intervene, the court said it was not going into the merits of the matter. “Normally, we won’t allow them to leapfrog and come here… We don’t want anything to happen in the meanwhile. That’s all. They have a right to challenge,” the CJI said.

“As of today, I am aware of 10 suits which are pending across the length and breadth of the country,” Ahmadi said.

The court, however, told him to “raise that argument in the matter which is already pending”.

“I’m only saying this. What is happening in many of these cases, the modus operandi is that on the first day itself, a surveyor is appointed,” Ahmadi submitted, adding that a narrative is then created. “This is an order which is capable of great public mischief,” he said.

“Therefore, we have kept it pending,” CJI Khanna said.

The court also orally asked the ASG to explore community mediation under Section 43 of the Mediation Act, 2023. “We don’t want anything to happen,” it underlined.

On November 19, the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Sambhal had passed an ex-parte order allowing a survey of the mosque by an advocate commissioner, after taking note of a plea that claimed the mosque was built after demolishing a temple.

On November 24, four people died of gunshot wounds metres away from the mosque after violence broke out after a survey team showed up at the mosque. The police, however, claimed the bullets were not fired by them.

In its appeal, the mosque committee said the mosque has been in existence since the 16th century and has been in continuous use by Muslims as a place of worship, but the matter was rushed through in “hot haste” after a suit was filed by eight plaintiffs who alleged that it was built after destroying the ‘Shri Hari Har Temple’.