The Supreme Court Friday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal, bringing a closely watched dispute over the religious site to a crucial stage. A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard the mosque management committee, the Hindu plaintiffs and the Uttar Pradesh government before reserving its decision.
The petitions challenge the Allahabad High Court’s May 19, 2025 order that upheld a Sambhal civil court’s decision to appoint an advocate commissioner to survey the mosque. The dispute originated in a 2024 civil suit in which Hindu plaintiffs claimed the mosque stood at the site of a temple and sought rights to perform religious ceremonies there, claims contested by the mosque committee.
1991 law takes centre stage
A central question before the Supreme Court is the application of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which generally preserves the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. The mosque committee argued that the suit and the survey proceedings ran contrary to the protections contained in the legislation.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the mosque committee, argued that the religious character of a place of worship could not be altered and questioned the manner in which the survey commissioner was appointed. The committee also contended that the trial court had proceeded without first giving it an opportunity to be heard and that a commissioner could not be appointed simply to collect evidence for one of the litigating parties.
The committee further relied on the legal protections governing ancient monuments, arguing that preservation of a protected religious monument extended beyond its physical structure to its religious character. It maintained that the mosque had continuously functioned as a place of Islamic worship and that its protected status could not be used to facilitate a change in that character.
Protected monument argument
The Hindu plaintiffs countered that the Sambhal structure had been declared a protected monument in 1920 and argued that this brought the dispute within an exception contained in Section 4(3)(a) of the Places of Worship Act. Their counsel contended that the 1991 law did not create an absolute bar against proceedings concerning monuments covered by ancient-monument legislation.
The plaintiffs have claimed that a temple dedicated to Lord Vishnu’s Kalki avatar existed at the site before the present structure was built. Those historical and religious assertions remain disputed and have not been judicially established.
The Uttar Pradesh government did not take a position on the competing religious claims. Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj told the court that the state did not wish to enter into the merits of the respective claims and argued that the applicability of the 1991 Act would depend on the nature of the relief sought in the underlying suit.
Survey order under challenge
The Sambhal civil court had appointed an advocate commissioner in November 2024 after the Hindu plaintiffs approached it seeking religious rights at the site. The mosque was subsequently surveyed, but the proceedings became the subject of intense legal and public scrutiny.
The mosque committee challenged the survey and the maintainability of the underlying suit. The Allahabad High Court rejected its challenge in May 2025, holding that the suit as well as the order appointing the court commissioner were maintainable, prompting the committee to approach the Supreme Court.
The apex court had earlier intervened in the dispute and directed the trial court not to proceed further while the legal challenges were being examined. It had also emphasised the need to maintain peace and harmony in Sambhal.
Verdict could clarify legal limits
The proceedings have acquired wider significance because the court is being asked to consider how the Places of Worship Act interacts with laws governing protected monuments. Another question concerns the circumstances in which a civil court can appoint an advocate commissioner to survey a disputed religious site, particularly before the defendant has been heard.
The mosque committee has argued that permitting surveys at the outset of such litigation could effectively enable parties to gather evidence for claims that may themselves face a statutory bar. The Hindu plaintiffs, on the other hand, have maintained that the protected status of the monument makes the legal position different and permits adjudication of their claims.
With arguments now concluded, the Supreme Court’s verdict will determine the immediate future of the Sambhal proceedings and could also clarify important questions surrounding surveys, protected monuments and the reach of the 1991 Places of Worship law.