The Supreme Court of India on Friday reserved its verdict on petitions filed by the management committee of Sambhal's Jama Masjid challenging a survey ordered by a trial court in the dispute over the Shahi Jama Masjid and the Harihar temple. A two-judge bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard arguments from multiple parties, including senior counsel representing the mosque committee, advocates for Hindu claimants, and the Uttar Pradesh government, before deciding to reserve judgment on the case.
The petitions challenge an order issued by the Allahabad High Court on May 19, 2025, which dismissed the mosque committee's plea against the survey and upheld the civil court's direction for the survey to proceed. The High Court had ruled that both the order to appoint a court commissioner and the suit itself were maintainable, clearing the way for the survey to take place. The mosque committee has since moved the Supreme Court of India seeking to overturn that decision and halt the survey process.
Background to the Dispute
The case arises from a 2024 suit filed by Hindu plaintiffs who claim that the Sambhal site was originally a temple. Following this claim, a Sambhal court ordered a survey of the mosque to examine the disputed property. The mosque committee challenged this order, but the Allahabad High Court upheld it, prompting the appeal to India's apex court. The Supreme High Court of India had previously intervened in the matter on November 29, 2024, when it ordered the Sambhal court to halt proceedings in the case while directing the Uttar Pradesh government to maintain peace and harmony in the town.
On August 22, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the mosque committee's plea against the High Court order, setting the stage for Friday's hearing. Throughout the case, the central legal question has revolved around the applicability and scope of the Places of Worship Act 1991, a statute that prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and mandates the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
Arguments on the Places of Worship Act 1991
During Friday's hearing, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the mosque committee, presented arguments challenging the survey order. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing some Hindu parties in the dispute, also advanced submissions before the bench. The central contention has been whether the Places of Worship Act 1991 applies to prevent claims regarding the original character of religious sites, or whether the survey can proceed under civil procedure rules.
The Places of Worship Act 1991 was enacted to freeze the religious character of places of worship as they existed on the date of India's independence. The statute contains a crucial exception: the dispute relating to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was kept out of its purview. This exception has become relevant in discussions about how broadly the 1991 law should be interpreted in cases involving competing claims to religious sites.
Advocate Jain contended that the Supreme Court's previous directions in the matter indicated that the 1991 Act's prohibition would not apply to cases of this nature, suggesting that civil courts retain the authority to examine such disputes through survey and other investigative procedures. This argument sought to distinguish the Sambhal case from the protections ordinarily afforded by the Places of Worship Act 1991.
State's Position on Protecting All Interests
The Uttar Pradesh government, represented by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, adopted a neutral stance before the bench. Nataraj told the apex court that the state does not wish to take sides in the dispute between the competing claims of the parties. "As the State, we don't want to get into the respective claims of either of the parties," he said. "As the State, we are committed and bound to protect the interests of all."
In making this submission, Nataraj referenced the Places of Worship Act 1991, indicating that the state views its obligations under that statute as central to its role in the matter. The government's position suggests that any resolution should be compatible with the statutory framework governing religious sites in India, even as the state refrains from endorsing either party's substantive claims about the site's original character.
The Survey and Its Legal Status
The survey at the centre of this dispute remains the focal point of the litigation. The Sambhal court ordered the survey as part of the civil suit filed by Hindu plaintiffs. The Allahabad High Court's decision to uphold this order was based on its finding that the suit was maintainable and that the appointment of a court commissioner to conduct the survey was a proper exercise of civil court powers. However, the mosque committee has argued that allowing such a survey violates the spirit and letter of the Places of Worship Act 1991.
The High Court's reasoning did not examine in detail the substance of the competing claims about the site's original character. Instead, it focused on procedural and jurisdictional questions: whether a civil suit on this matter could be entertained and whether the court had the authority to order a survey. The High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, thereby enabling the survey to proceed.
The 1991 Act's Protective Scope
The Places of Worship Act 1991 represents a key constitutional and statutory effort to preserve religious harmony by freezing the status quo of places of worship as of August 15, 1947. The statute applies across India with the exception noted for Ayodhya. Its purpose is to prevent disputes from arising over the original religious character of sites and to protect minority communities from having their places of worship converted or reclaimed.
However, the act does not explicitly bar civil litigation regarding disputed sites. The question before the Supreme Court 0f India is whether the act's protective purpose extends to prevent surveys and investigative procedures that might be used to establish or challenge a site's original religious character. The mosque committee argues that permitting such surveys undermines the act's protective intent. The Hindu parties and their counsel argue that the act does not prevent civil courts from examining disputed properties through established legal procedures.
What Happens Next
With the bench having reserved its verdict, a judgment is expected at a future date. The Supreme Court has not announced when the decision will be delivered. In the interim, the status quo order issued on November 29, 2024, directing the Sambhal court to halt proceedings, remains in effect. The Uttar Pradesh government has been directed to maintain peace and harmony in Sambhal.
The case will clarify the scope and application of the Places of Worship Act 1991 in contemporary disputes over religious sites. The verdict will determine whether civil courts can order surveys and investigations into the original character of disputed religious properties, or whether the 1991 Act creates a procedural bar to such inquiries. The decision will also set a precedent for how courts balance the protective intent of the 1991 statute against the procedural rights of litigants in civil suits involving religious properties.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.