Sambhal Jama Masjid Case: Supreme Court Reserves Order On Plea Against Survey Commissioner Appointment

The Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard the matter.

The dispute also raised questions concerning the applicability of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, to the proceedings and whether the Sambhal Jama Masjid falls within the statutory exemption under the Act for certain protected monuments.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, told the Court that the State did not wish to enter into the factual controversies between the private parties.

Nataraj submitted that irrespective of the outcome of the dispute, the State was bound to protect the religious rights of the parties. The State instead focused on the interpretation of the Places of Worship Act, particularly Section 3, which prohibits conversion of a place of worship.

Nataraj submitted that “conversion” under Section 2(b) includes alteration or change of whatever nature. He argued that whether proceedings are barred by the Act would depend upon the pleadings and the relief sought in the suit.

The ASG also referred to the question of “religious denomination” under Section 3, an issue pending consideration before a Constitution Bench. He submitted that the larger question concerned whether the expression refers to an entire religion or only a particular section of it. However, Nataraj submitted that these issues need not be decided at the present stage.

The Bench noted that the Sambhal proceedings were still at a nascent stage, with only an Advocate Commissioner having been appointed.

Nataraj submitted that the Court need not enter into the Places of Worship Act issues at this stage and that the relevant questions could be considered by the concerned court at the appropriate stage.

Senior Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the Sambhal Jama Masjid Committee, then addressed the provisions of the Places of Worship Act.

Jain submitted that Sections 4(1) and 4(2) create the statutory bar on institution of proceedings before courts concerning the religious character of places of worship. Referring to Section 4(3)(a), Jain argued that the provision creates an exemption for places protected under laws concerning ancient monuments and archaeological sites.

According to Jain, the Sambhal Jama Masjid falls within this statutory exemption.

He submitted that the monument was declared protected under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, through a notification dated November 18, 1920. The notification specifically listed the Jumma Masjid among protected monuments and prohibited destruction, removal or defacement of the monument, as well as construction at or near it, without government permission.

Jain submitted that the notification was subsequently confirmed by an order dated December 22, 1920, and traced the legislative history of the monument through subsequent ancient monuments legislation enacted in 1951 and 1958.

According to Jain, the legislative history established that the protection of the monument continued under the subsequent statutory regime, bringing the Sambhal Jama Masjid within the exemption contemplated under Section 4(3)(a) of the Places of Worship Act.

Jain also referred to the procedural history of the case, submitting that the Allahabad High Court had framed three issues, including the applicability of the Places of Worship Act and whether the suit could be “nipped in the bud”. He pointed out that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure had already been filed before the trial court, seeking rejection of the plaint.

Jain further submitted that the trial court had recorded that officials of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) were allegedly not allowed to enter the ASI-protected monument. However, Jain clarified that the Allahabad High Court had not conclusively decided whether the bar under Section 4(3)(a) of the Places of Worship Act applied to the Sambhal Jama Masjid. “The High Court has not given a finding that Section 4(3)(a) is attracted or not attracted. That issue is still open,” Jain submitted.

He referred to paragraph 121 of the High Court judgment, submitting that the High Court had left open the question of whether the suit was barred under the Places of Worship Act to be raised at the stage of framing of issues or through an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Jain further argued that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, by itself, caused no prejudice to either side since the Commissioner’s report would remain subject to consideration and confirmation by the trial court. He also addressed submissions concerning the religious significance claimed for the site and referred to passages from the Vishnu Purana and other scriptures.

On reliance upon the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya/Ram Janmabhoomi judgment, Jain submitted that the observations being relied upon were obiter and that the judgment itself recognised the statutory position under Section 5 of the Places of Worship Act, which specifically excludes the Ayodhya dispute from the Act’s operation.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Committee of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal, opposed the submissions concerning the Places of Worship Act.

Ahmadi submitted that the interpretation of the Places of Worship Act was directly in issue in the matter and that the same question was already pending consideration before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in a separate batch of cases.

Responding to the State’s submissions concerning Section 3, Ahmadi referred to the long title of the Places of Worship Act, which states that the legislation seeks to prohibit conversion of any place of worship. He submitted that irrespective of the interpretation of “religious denomination”, conversion of a place of worship was prohibited under Section 3.

Ahmadi also addressed the argument concerning ASI-protected monuments under Section 4(3). “I am not for a moment suggesting that to an ancient monument Section 4 will apply,” Ahmadi submitted. He argued that the absolute prohibition under Section 3 continued to operate even in respect of an ASI-protected monument. According to him, a contrary interpretation could lead to a situation where ancient temples or mosques protected by the ASI would not receive protection against conversion, while comparatively newer places of worship would remain protected.

Ahmadi submitted that such a consequence could not have been the object of the Places of Worship Act.

He also clarified his reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Siddique’s case, stating that it was cited only for the limited proposition that if the suit itself was not maintainable, an order appointing a Commissioner could not have been passed. The question of maintainability, he submitted, remained to be determined in the pending Order VII Rule 11 application.

After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court reserved its order on the Sambhal Jama Masjid Committee’s challenge to the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner.