सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने सांभल मस्जिद सर्वेक्षण विरोधी याचिकाओं पर निर्णय स्थगित किया

Supreme Court reserves verdict on Sambhal Mosque Committee's plea against survey

The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on pleas against the Sambhal mosque survey. The hearing sharpened focus on the Places of Worship Act and limits on fresh religious-site claims.

The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging a survey ordered by a Sambhal court in the dispute over the Shahi Jama Masjid and the Harihar temple. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard two pleas filed by the mosque's management committee against the Allahabad High Court's May 19, 2025 order.

The high court had dismissed the mosque committee's challenge to the survey ordered by the Sambhal court and had said both the suit and the order appointing a court commissioner were maintainable.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court also considered submissions on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and earlier orders passed by the top court in related matters.

Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj told the court the state was not taking sides in the dispute. "As the State, we don't want to get into the respective claims of either of the parties," he said, adding, "As the State, we are committed and bound to protect the interests of all." He also referred to the provisions of the 1991 law.

The Places of Worship Act bars the conversion of any place of worship and provides for maintaining the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute at Ayodhya was kept outside the law's ambit. The bench also heard senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi for the mosque committee and advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain for some Hindu parties.

Ahmadi told the bench that the issue of interpreting the 1991 Act was already pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court. He had earlier argued on July 28 that the high court could not have proceeded with the matter in view of the apex court's December 12, 2024 order, which barred courts across the country, until further directions, from entertaining fresh suits and from passing effective interim or final orders in pending cases seeking to reclaim religious places, especially mosques and dargahs.

That order was passed while the Supreme Court was hearing pleas challenging various provisions of the 1991 Act.

The mosque committee had earlier moved the high court against a November 19, 2024 order of a civil judge directing a survey of the Mughal-era mosque, which was carried out the same day. The committee also said a second survey conducted on November 24, 2024 was illegal because the civil court had not ordered it.

On August 22 last year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the mosque committee's plea against the high court order and said, "In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status quo, as on today."

The civil suit before the senior division civil judge in Sambhal claims the mosque was built after a temple at the site was demolished. It says Mughal emperor Babur built the mosque in 1526 after demolishing the Harihar temple.

Earlier, on November 29, 2024, the Supreme Court had ordered the Sambhal court in Chandausi to halt proceedings in the case relating to the mosque and its survey, while directing the Uttar Pradesh government to maintain peace and harmony in the town. With Friday's hearing complete, the top court has now reserved its verdict on the challenge to the survey order.

The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging a survey ordered by a Sambhal court in the dispute over the Shahi Jama Masjid and the Harihar temple. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard two pleas filed by the mosque's management committee against the Allahabad High Court's May 19, 2025 order.

The high court had dismissed the mosque committee's challenge to the survey ordered by the Sambhal court and had said both the suit and the order appointing a court commissioner were maintainable.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court also considered submissions on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and earlier orders passed by the top court in related matters.

Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj told the court the state was not taking sides in the dispute. "As the State, we don't want to get into the respective claims of either of the parties," he said, adding, "As the State, we are committed and bound to protect the interests of all." He also referred to the provisions of the 1991 law.

The Places of Worship Act bars the conversion of any place of worship and provides for maintaining the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute at Ayodhya was kept outside the law's ambit. The bench also heard senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi for the mosque committee and advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain for some Hindu parties.

Ahmadi told the bench that the issue of interpreting the 1991 Act was already pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court. He had earlier argued on July 28 that the high court could not have proceeded with the matter in view of the apex court's December 12, 2024 order, which barred courts across the country, until further directions, from entertaining fresh suits and from passing effective interim or final orders in pending cases seeking to reclaim religious places, especially mosques and dargahs.

That order was passed while the Supreme Court was hearing pleas challenging various provisions of the 1991 Act.

The mosque committee had earlier moved the high court against a November 19, 2024 order of a civil judge directing a survey of the Mughal-era mosque, which was carried out the same day. The committee also said a second survey conducted on November 24, 2024 was illegal because the civil court had not ordered it.

On August 22 last year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the mosque committee's plea against the high court order and said, "In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status quo, as on today."

The civil suit before the senior division civil judge in Sambhal claims the mosque was built after a temple at the site was demolished. It says Mughal emperor Babur built the mosque in 1526 after demolishing the Harihar temple.

Earlier, on November 29, 2024, the Supreme Court had ordered the Sambhal court in Chandausi to halt proceedings in the case relating to the mosque and its survey, while directing the Uttar Pradesh government to maintain peace and harmony in the town. With Friday's hearing complete, the top court has now reserved its verdict on the challenge to the survey order.

The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging a survey ordered by a Sambhal court in the dispute over the Shahi Jama Masjid and the Harihar temple. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard two pleas filed by the mosque's management committee against the Allahabad High Court's May 19, 2025 order.

The high court had dismissed the mosque committee's challenge to the survey ordered by the Sambhal court and had said both the suit and the order appointing a court commissioner were maintainable.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court also considered submissions on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and earlier orders passed by the top court in related matters.

Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj told the court the state was not taking sides in the dispute. "As the State, we don't want to get into the respective claims of either of the parties," he said, adding, "As the State, we are committed and bound to protect the interests of all." He also referred to the provisions of the 1991 law.

The Places of Worship Act bars the conversion of any place of worship and provides for maintaining the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute at Ayodhya was kept outside the law's ambit. The bench also heard senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi for the mosque committee and advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain for some Hindu parties.

Ahmadi told the bench that the issue of interpreting the 1991 Act was already pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court. He had earlier argued on July 28 that the high court could not have proceeded with the matter in view of the apex court's December 12, 2024 order, which barred courts across the country, until further directions, from entertaining fresh suits and from passing effective interim or final orders in pending cases seeking to reclaim religious places, especially mosques and dargahs.

That order was passed while the Supreme Court was hearing pleas challenging various provisions of the 1991 Act.

The mosque committee had earlier moved the high court against a November 19, 2024 order of a civil judge directing a survey of the Mughal-era mosque, which was carried out the same day. The committee also said a second survey conducted on November 24, 2024 was illegal because the civil court had not ordered it.

On August 22 last year, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the mosque committee's plea against the high court order and said, "In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status quo, as on today."

The civil suit before the senior division civil judge in Sambhal claims the mosque was built after a temple at the site was demolished. It says Mughal emperor Babur built the mosque in 1526 after demolishing the Harihar temple.

Earlier, on November 29, 2024, the Supreme Court had ordered the Sambhal court in Chandausi to halt proceedings in the case relating to the mosque and its survey, while directing the Uttar Pradesh government to maintain peace and harmony in the town. With Friday's hearing complete, the top court has now reserved its verdict on the challenge to the survey order.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News