Sambhal Row | 'Juma Mosque A Centrally Protected Monument, It Isn't A Religious Place Or Public Worship Site': ASI To Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal reserved the order after hearing the contentions of the Mosque Committee, the original Hindu plaintiffs, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and the Uttar Pradesh Government.

For context, the impugned order was passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aditya Singh on a suit filed by eight plaintiffs, including Mahant Rishiraj Giri, who alleged that the mosque was constructed in 1526 after demolishing an ancient temple (Hari Har Temple) dedicated to Kalki, the last avatar of Lord Vishnu. The plaintiffs, represented by Advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Vishnu Shankar Jain, are also claiming the right to access the mosque premises.

Following the trial court's order for a survey, violence broke out on November 24, resulting in the death of four people.

The trial court proceedings were effectively stayed by the Supreme Court in November last year. The apex court had directed that the trial court shall not proceed further with the matter until the Mosque Committee's petition against the survey order is listed before the High Court.

Before the High Court, the Mosque Committee has argued that the trial court unjustifiably allowed the plaintiffs' application to bypass the mandatory requirement of Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) on the very same day the suit was instituted. It further objected to the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner, contending that the survey, which was permitted to be conducted on a single day, continued for two days, which is in violation of the court's directive.

The ASI also submitted its counter in the matter, stating that the 'Juma Mosque' has been notified as a Centrally Protected Monument. After independence, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act) came into effect, and its provisions are now applicable to such monuments and nowhere is the mosque described as a religious place in official records.

The ASI has further argued that there is no historical, archaeological, or revenue evidence supporting the term 'Shahi Masjid.' Its counter adds that under Section 5 of the AMASR Act, the ASI is empowered to acquire rights for the preservation of protected monuments, and Section 4 also authorises the Central Government to declare any monument of historical importance as protected, thereby any unauthorised claims of ownership or control (referring to Masjid Committee's claims) have no meaning.

The ASI has also contended that the Mosque Committee has forcibly involved itself with the monument and carried out unauthorised interventions, additions, and modifications.