What is the Sambhal mosque dispute in Supreme Court? How is it linked to Places of Worship Act?

Until this week, Sambhal was a relatively unknown district in Uttar Pradesh with people from outside knowing little about it. However, last Sunday (November 24) this small district saw massive violence, resulting in the death of four people and many others injured.

The reason for this violence: a court-ordered survey of a Mughal-era mosque, known as Shahi Jama Masjid, which Hindus claim was built by destroying a Hindu temple.

And now on Friday (November 29), this matter will also be heard by Chief Justice of India Justice
Sanjiv Khanna in the Supreme Court.

But if are you confused about it all, then read on to know about the legal issues about the Shahi Jama Masjid.

The mosque in Sambhal is one of the three built by Mughal emperor Babur during his reign between 1526 and 1530. Historical data states that the mosque in Sambhal was built Babur’s general Mir Hindu Beg around 1528.

According to historian Howard Crane in his essay The Patronage of Babur and the Origins of Mughal Architecture, the mosque is built on a hill at the centre of Sambhal. “It consists of a sanctuary formed of a large, square mihrab hall with battered walls, covered by a dome on squinches, and flanked by arches on north and south,” he wrote in the essay.

While most attribute this structure to Hindu Beg, there are some who note that the mosque is a Tughlaq-era monument and the Mughal founder merely added certain features to its architecture.

A total of eight petitioners, including advocate Hari Shankar Jain, who is also a lawyer in the Gyanvapi mosque-Kashi Vishwanath dispute, filed a case in the Sambhal court saying that the mosque is built upon a centuries old Hari Har Mandir dedicated to Lord Kalki.

Their plea adds that “Hindu scriptures confirm that in ancient times a unique ‘Vigrah’ consisting of Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva emerged and due to this reason, it is called ‘Shri Hari Har’ temple. It says that “Shri Hari Har temple of Sambhal was made by Lord Vishwakarma Himself at the beginning of the universe”.

The petitioners also argued in the Sambhal court that Babur invaded India and then “destroyed a number of temples to show the might of Islam to make Hindus feel that they are subjects of Islamic ruler”.

In their plea, they say that “in 1527-28 Hindu Beg, the Lieutenant of Babar Army partly demolished Shri Hari Har temple at Sambhal” and that “the Muslims occupied the temple building to use the same as mosque”.

They argue that the monument is protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and under section 18 of the Act, the public has the “right of access to protected monument”.

After hearing the matter, the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambhal at Chandausi, Aditya Singh ordered a survey of the mosque and asked that the report be submitted before November 29.

Acting on the order, a survey team carried out a survey of the mosque on November 19. However, problems arose when the second survey was conducted on November 24. When the officials finished their assessment and came out of the premises, they were confronted by an angry mob, which then resulted in
violence.

The Shahi Jama Masjid Committee then moved the Supreme Court, seeking an immediate stay on the order. In their plea, the committee says that this is “an extraordinary case”, so the court should take “extraordinary steps”.

The petitioners in the apex court said that the civil court issued one-sided orders and did not call for a response from them — the affected party. They have also questioned the manner in which the survey was ordered and the impact it will have on other cases concerning places of worship.

They have also opposed the survey based on the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The law maintains that barring Ayodhya, status quo as on August 15, 1947, will have to be maintained for religious structures across the country.

This law maintains that the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, must be maintained. The only exception was the then ongoing dispute around the
Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi.

The legislation sought to shut down any possibilities of contesting places of worship. The Act’s Section 3 leaves no room for debate by clearly barring the conversion in full or part of a place of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination.

The Sambhal case, which bears similarities to the
Gyanvapi case, seems to contravene the Places of Worship Act, 1991. However, petitioners point to the four separate pleas challenging the Places of Worship Act. They also point to Justice
DY Chandrachud’s 2022 oral observation that although changing the nature of the religious place is barred under the 1991 law, the “ascertainment of a religious character of a place, as a processual instrument, may not necessarily fall foul of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 (of the Act)…”

What this meant is that though one can’t change the nature of a religious place, there is no restriction in carrying an inquiry into what was the nature of the place of worship on August 15, 1947.