The Supreme Court today(September 1) continued the status quo with respect to the Hindu plaintiffs' suit against the Sambhal Mosque in Uttar Pradesh, as was ordered on August 22.
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing the Sambhal Mosque Committee's plea against the May 19, 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court that held that the suit against the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal was not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.
On last occasion, Advocate Shashank Shri Tripathi had informed the Court that against the May order, he has filed the special leave petition for the Mosque Committee ( SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025 through) AoR Anil Kumar. However, another SLP (C) 21599/2025 has been filed by the Mosque Committee through AoR Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi in which Senior Advocate Huzefa A Ahmadi appeared. Considering that the two SLPs challenging the same order has been filed by the same petitioner, the Court today directed the Registry to file a report as to which SLP has been correctly filed within two weeks.
Meanwhile, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, for the plaintiffs, requested the Court to vacate the interim order. However, the Court did not consider the request, saying that it has to first see how two SLPs with the same petitioner have been filed through a different Advocate on Record.
The High Court had dismissed the Mosque Committee's plea challenging the trial court's order dated November 19, 2024, which had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to carry out a local investigation of the mosque premises. The visit of the Commissioner in November last year to the mosque had led to communal violence in the area. The Supreme Court later stayed trial court proceedings in November 2024 until the High Court decided the Mosque Committee's challenge.
The suit before the trial court was filed by eight Hindu plaintiffs, including Mahant Rishiraj Giri, who claimed that the mosque was constructed in 1526 after partially demolishing an ancient temple dedicated to Kalki, the last avatar of Lord Vishnu. They sought the right to access the structure, which is a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
The High Court considered three legal questions: whether leave to institute the suit before the expiry of notice under Section 80(2) of the CPC was valid; whether the trial court was correct in appointing a Commission under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 CPC; and whether the suit was barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. It ruled in favour of the plaintiffs on all counts.
It held that the notice under Section 80 CPC had been served on October 21, 2024, and no objection had been raised by the Government or its officers, making the leave valid. The Court found that the Advocate Commissioner's appointment for a local investigation was in accordance with procedural requirements and could be made even without notice to the other side in appropriate cases.
On the 1991 Act issue, the High Court noted that the suit was not barred as it was not aimed at altering the religious character of the site but sought enforcement of the right of public access under Section 18 of the 1958 Act. It observed that the mosque had been declared a protected monument as early as 1920 and that an agreement was signed in 1927 between its mutawallis and the Collector of Moradabad, recognising the Archaeological Survey of India's role in its maintenance.
Case Details: COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JAMI MASJID, SAMBHAL Vs HARI SHANKAR JAIN| SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025(AOR Anil Kumar) and COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, JAMI MASJID SAMBHAL, AHMED MARG KOT SAMBHAL vs. HARI SHANKAR JAIN|SLP (C) 21599/2025 (AOR Fazail Ahmad)