The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on challenges to a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, after hearing the mosque management committee, Hindu plaintiffs and the Uttar Pradesh government.A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe on Friday concluded arguments on two petitions filed by the Committee of Management, Jami Masjid, Sambhal, against the Allahabad High Court’s May 19, 2025 judgment upholding the appointment of an advocate commissioner for a local investigation of the mosque premises.
The dispute stems from a civil suit filed in Sambhal in November 2024 by Hindu plaintiffs who claim a right to enter the site and perform religious ceremonies, contending that the mosque stands on the site of a Harihar temple. The claims are contested by the mosque committee.
The Allahabad High Court had rejected the committee’s challenge to the November 19, 2024 order appointing the commissioner. It held that the suit and the direction for local investigation could not, at that stage, be treated as barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
During the Supreme Court hearing, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi and advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for the mosque committee, argued that the Places of Worship Act protected the religious character of the structure and that the trial court had acted improperly in appointing a commissioner without first hearing the committee.
The committee also contended that Section 3 of the 1991 Act independently prohibits conversion of the religious character of a place of worship and that protection should continue to apply even where a structure is an ancient monument protected under separate legislation.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the Hindu plaintiffs, argued that the structure was declared a protected monument under the earlier ancient monuments law and relied on the exception in Section 4 of the Places of Worship Act. The plaintiffs maintain that their suit seeks access for worship rather than conversion of the site’s religious character.
Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, told the court that the state did not want to enter the merits of the underlying religious dispute because the civil suit remains pending before the trial court. He said the government was required to protect the interests of both sides.
Nataraj addressed the statutory framework, submitting that Section 2 of the Places of Worship Act defines conversion to include alteration or change, while Section 3 prohibits conversion of a place of worship. Whether proceedings are barred, he argued, would depend on whether they concern such conversion.
Ahmadi, in rejoinder, said the interpretation of the 1991 law was central to the case and noted that questions concerning the statute are already before a larger bench of the Supreme Court. He argued that the ancient-monument exception in Section 4 could not be read as removing the separate prohibition contained in Section 3.
The committee also relied on the Supreme Court’s December 12, 2024 interim direction in the wider Places of Worship Act litigation. That order restrained courts from registering fresh suits concerning religious places and from passing effective interim or final orders, including survey directions, in pending matters until further orders. Counsel argued that the High Court should not have proceeded in a manner inconsistent with that restraint, while the opposing side maintained that the Sambhal litigation fell within statutory exceptions.
The committee has also challenged the manner in which the survey was ordered. It has argued that the commissioner was appointed ex parte on the day the suit was instituted, without notice to the mosque management and without specific points being framed for the local investigation.
The Sambhal trial court ordered the local investigation on November 19, 2024. The survey was carried out that day and again on November 24. The mosque committee has questioned the legality of the second exercise and the procedure followed in commissioning it.
