The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice in response to a petition filed by the management committee of Sambhal’s Shahi Jama Masjid and ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding a private well situated near the entrance of the mosque. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, directed that no actions or steps concerning the well should be taken without the court’s explicit permission. Authorities were further instructed to file a comprehensive status report within two weeks.
The plea was filed by the Committee of Management of Shahi Jama Masjid, challenging an order issued on November 19, 2024, by the Sambhal Senior Division Civil Judge. This order permitted the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey the mosque premises. According to the committee, the survey led to significant unrest, including violence and loss of life, prompting the committee to seek urgent relief from the apex court.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the mosque management, highlighted the historical significance of the well, which has been used by the mosque community “since time immemorial.” He raised concerns regarding a notice that referred to the site as “Hari Mandir” and alleged plans to commence religious activities at the location. Ahmadi argued that such developments could escalate tensions further and sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to prevent any unilateral actions.
In response, Chief Justice Khanna assured that no such activities would be allowed without the court’s approval. He emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and instructed the authorities to provide a detailed report on the matter. “No such activities will be permitted. Please file a status report,” the Chief Justice directed.
The bench further clarified that the status quo must be upheld concerning the well, and any notices related to it would not be acted upon until further orders. The court’s intervention was aimed at preventing any aggravation of the situation while the legal proceedings continued.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the Hindu side, contended that the well is located outside the mosque’s jurisdiction and has historically been used for worship by members of the Hindu community. He argued that the site’s religious significance predates its current usage and supported the civil court’s decision to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the survey.
Ahmadi countered this argument by stating that the well lies partly within the mosque premises and partly outside it. To support his claim, he referred to a Google Maps image, suggesting that the well’s placement validates the committee’s stance. He reiterated that any attempt to change the site’s current status would be a breach of the community’s longstanding rights.
The petition filed by the mosque committee also criticized the civil court’s November 19, 2024 order, alleging procedural lapses. The committee argued that the application seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was filed and approved on the same day, without allowing the mosque management to present its case.
The plea further stated that the subsequent survey conducted as a result of the civil court’s order exacerbated tensions, leading to violent clashes and loss of life. The committee claimed that the “extraordinary circumstances” surrounding the case necessitated the filing of the petition before the Supreme Court.
The mosque committee requested the apex court to issue directions to the District Magistrate of Sambhal to ensure that the status quo regarding the well is preserved. The committee also sought assurances that no actions would be taken with respect to the site without prior approval from the Supreme Court.
The court’s interim order to maintain the status quo and bar any further actions reflects its intent to address the dispute with caution and sensitivity. By calling for a status report, the bench aims to obtain a clear picture of the facts before proceeding with the case. The next hearing on the matter is expected to provide further clarity on the historical, legal, and religious claims surrounding the well.
