The Supreme Court granted a two-week period to the mosque committee to file its response to a status report submitted by authorities, which claimed that a disputed well lies completely outside the premises of Sambhal's Mughal-era Jama Masjid. The Court, while maintaining status quo, observed that no steps shall be taken concerning the well without its permission and underscored the importance of preserving peace and judicial process.
The matter arose from a petition filed by the Committee of Management of Shahi Jama Masjid, Sambhal, challenging an order passed by the Sambhal civil court on November 19, 2024. The said order had permitted the appointment of an advocate commissioner to conduct a survey of the mosque. The petitioners alleged that the order was passed ex parte, without affording them an opportunity of being heard. In the aftermath of the order, tensions escalated, culminating in violence during a protest on November 24, 2024.
During the hearing, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the mosque committee, sought three weeks' time to file the response, citing the incarceration of the committee's president, Zafar Ali, who had been arrested on March 23, 2025. However, the bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, also comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar, declined the request and granted only two weeks. The Chief Justice remarked, "Take a 'mulaqat' (jail visit) and do it. Somebody else can also file the response. Please do it in two weeks only."
The counsel for the mosque committee submitted that the district administration was carrying out a purported drive aimed at reviving old temples and wells, including the identification of a well situated at the tri-junction near the mosque entrance. It was further contended that the well had been historically used by the mosque for drawing water and was partly situated within its premises. Ahmadi emphasized the historical significance of the well and raised concerns regarding a notice describing the site as "Hari Mandir" with proposed plans to initiate religious activity.
On the other hand, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the Hindu side, argued that the well was completely outside the mosque's precincts and had been historically used for worship. Supporting the authorities' claim, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Natraj, representing the State, submitted that the well was located beyond a police post, entirely outside the mosque premises.
The Court noted the conflicting claims and emphasized that until further directions, the status quo must be maintained. It directed the district magistrate to refrain from implementing any notices relating to the disputed well. The bench further instructed that the response from the mosque committee be submitted within two weeks and that no steps be taken regarding the site without express permission from the Court.
The matter will now be listed for further hearing after the filing of responses and examination of the status report and claims of both parties.
Picture Source :
