NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday directed for maintaining status quo till August 25 in the Sambhal mosque row, while seeking a response from Hindu petitioners on a plea against survey of the Mughal-era masjid.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and AS Chandurkar issued the order as senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi for the masjid committee contended that the challenge was to the findings of the High Court that the suit was not barred by the Places of Worship Act.
The court asked whether the matter should be tagged along with the batch of petitions in connection with the Places of Worship Act.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the Hindu parties, contended that the issue relating to the Places of Worship Act did not arise in the matter and Sambhal mosque was a monument protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and was outside the ambit of the Act.
The bench passed the order of maintaining status quo till Monday after hearing submissions.
An appeal was filed by Masjid committee challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court.
The High Court had dismissed the committee’s plea against the survey ordered by a Sambhal court in the Shahi Jama Masjid and Harihar Temple dispute, upholding the civil court’s direction for the survey. It said the order to appoint a court commissioner and the suit were maintainable.
The mosque committee approached the High Court against the November 19, 2024 order of the civil judge directing the Mughal-era mosque’ survey which took place the same day. A second survey carried out on November 24, 2024 the committee claimed, was illegal as the civil court never ordered it.
The survey of the mosque led to the violence at Sambhal, last year.
The apex court had in December, 2024, while acting separately on a batch of pleas against the Place of Worship Act, 1991, had restrained all courts from entertaining fresh suits and also from passing any interim or final orders in pending cases seeking to reclaim religious places.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
