The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday, January 8, stayed the proceedings of the Sambhal civil court in the Jama Masjid case until February 25.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal issued the order while hearing a civil revision petition filed by the managing committee of the Mughal-era mosque. The petition challenged the trial court’s November 19 directive, which ordered a survey of the mosque by an advocate commissioner.
The Sambhal civil judge (senior division) had directed the survey following a plea by Hindu activists, who claimed that the Shahi Jama Masjid, built during the reign of Mughal emperor Babur, was originally a Hindu temple dedicated to Kalki, the prophesied avatar of Vishnu.
Acting on this plea, the survey team, led by advocate commissioner Ramesh Raghav, initially conducted a hurried inspection on the same day.
On November 24, the team attempted a second round of photography and videography at the mosque. However, tensions escalated, resulting in violence in the lanes surrounding the mosque.
The unrest led to the deaths of four Muslim men, whose families alleged they were shot by the police—an accusation the authorities denied. Several police personnel were injured, and vehicles were torched during the clashes.
In response to the incident, the Uttar Pradesh government ordered a judicial inquiry on November 28. The probe is being conducted by a three-member commission headed by retired High Court judge Devendra Kumar Arora.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, in its December 12 hearing on petitions challenging The Places of Worship Act, 1991, directed all courts across the country not to register new suits concerning religious sites.
It also barred courts from issuing interim or final orders, including directions for surveys, in ongoing cases. These directives apply to the Sambhal case as well.
The advocate commissioner’s survey report of the Sambhal Jama Masjid has been submitted to the local court in a sealed cover. Hearing the mosque committee’s petition, Justice Agarwal stated that the matter warrants further consideration and sought responses from the state and Union governments, the district magistrate, and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
The Hindu side, represented by senior lawyer Hari Shankar Jain, have argued that the Shahi Jama Masjid was originally the Hari Har temple and is protected under Section 3(3) of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904.
They also cited provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, claiming the ASI has failed to facilitate public access to the site.
The court’s intervention has temporarily halted further proceedings, pending detailed consideration of the legal and historical aspects of the case.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal issued the order while hearing a civil revision petition filed by the managing committee of the Mughal-era mosque. The petition challenged the trial court’s November 19 directive, which ordered a survey of the mosque by an advocate commissioner.
The Sambhal civil judge (senior division) had directed the survey following a plea by Hindu activists, who claimed that the Shahi Jama Masjid, built during the reign of Mughal emperor Babur, was originally a Hindu temple dedicated to Kalki, the prophesied avatar of Vishnu.
Acting on this plea, the survey team, led by advocate commissioner Ramesh Raghav, initially conducted a hurried inspection on the same day.
On November 24, the team attempted a second round of photography and videography at the mosque. However, tensions escalated, resulting in violence in the lanes surrounding the mosque.
The unrest led to the deaths of four Muslim men, whose families alleged they were shot by the police—an accusation the authorities denied. Several police personnel were injured, and vehicles were torched during the clashes.
In response to the incident, the Uttar Pradesh government ordered a judicial inquiry on November 28. The probe is being conducted by a three-member commission headed by retired High Court judge Devendra Kumar Arora.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, in its December 12 hearing on petitions challenging The Places of Worship Act, 1991, directed all courts across the country not to register new suits concerning religious sites.
It also barred courts from issuing interim or final orders, including directions for surveys, in ongoing cases. These directives apply to the Sambhal case as well.
The advocate commissioner’s survey report of the Sambhal Jama Masjid has been submitted to the local court in a sealed cover. Hearing the mosque committee’s petition, Justice Agarwal stated that the matter warrants further consideration and sought responses from the state and Union governments, the district magistrate, and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
The Hindu side, represented by senior lawyer Hari Shankar Jain, have argued that the Shahi Jama Masjid was originally the Hari Har temple and is protected under Section 3(3) of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904.
They also cited provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, claiming the ASI has failed to facilitate public access to the site.
The court’s intervention has temporarily halted further proceedings, pending detailed consideration of the legal and historical aspects of the case.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment