noThe petition filed in Bhal is similar to the petitions filed for Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi and Shahi Eidgah in Mathura. The main issue is how the law – the ‘Places of Worship Act, 1991’ – is to be interpreted. The Sambhal district court ordered a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid on the basis of a petition claiming that it was built on the site of a Hindu temple. The order led to protests by local Muslim residents, who considered it an attack on their religious rights and heritage. The protests turned violent when a large crowd gathered to oppose the survey. Reports indicate that protesters clashed with police, resulting in injuries and deaths to both protesters and law enforcement officers. Ongoing controversies over religious sites in India, particularly those involving claims of historical conversion, have heightened communal sensitivities. Similar cases in Varanasi and Mathura have set precedents that contribute to public unrest when surveys or legal actions are seen as threatening the status quo of religious sites.
The controversy over Sambhal's Jama Masjid has increased amidst the ongoing cases in Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura. The Hindu side claims that Jama Masjid was built by demolishing the Harihar Temple. The Muslim side rejects the claims of the Hindu side regarding Jama Masjid. The recent battle is being fought legally, in which work is being done on the survey order of the mosque issued by the court. A suit regarding Jama Masjid was filed on behalf of Vishnu Shankar Jain in the court of Civil Judge of Sambhal.
There are 8 plaintiffs including Supreme Court lawyer Harishankar Jain and Mahant Rishiraj Giri of Kela Devi Temple. The plaintiffs have made the Government of India, the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Sambhal Jama Masjid Committee as parties to the dispute. The petition said- 'The mosque was originally a Harihar temple, which was converted into a mosque in 1529. The temple was demolished by the Mughal emperor Babur in 1529. It is mentioned in the book Baburnama and AinaeAkbari that at the place where Jama Masjid is built, there once used to be a Harihar temple.
The Muslim side also believes that Jama Masjid was built by Babar and till today Muslims have been offering Namaz in it. However, the Muslim side registers its opposition in the legal dispute on the basis of the 1991 order of the Supreme Court, in which the court had said that whatever condition the religious places are in since August 15, 1947, they will remain at their places. The Supreme Court had also emphasized on this at the time of the verdict on Ayodhya. Through this, the Muslim side asserts its right over the Jama Masjid of Sambhal and the claims of the Hindu side and any other judicial proceedings are described as a violation of the law.
What does the law say about the petitioners' claim? The petitioners filed a civil suit to establish their claim on the mosque Site. In civil lawsuits, initial claims are generally accepted at face value (prima facie), with further evidence being presented later if the case is deemed triable. However, any claim that seeks to alter the religious character of a place of worship is barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
The purpose of this Act is to maintain the status quo of religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947. What does the Places of Worship Act, 1991 say? The Act prohibits any conversion of places of worship and mandates that their religious character must remain as it was on August 15, 1947. Specifically, Section 3 prohibits the conversion of any place of worship, in whole or in part, into any other sect or sect.
Section 4 states that on that date any legal proceedings in relation to the alteration of the religious character of a place are abated (terminated), so that no new suits can be filed in respect of such alterations. Notably, the Act does not apply to disputes already pending at the time of its enactment, such as the Babri MasjidRam Janmabhoomi case, which has complicated its application in contemporary disputes.
How have the courts allowed these title suits? Despite the provisions of the Places of Worship Act, courts have allowed title suits related to places like Gyanvapi and Mathura by ruling them maintainable. An important observation made by the Supreme Court indicated that changing the religious nature of a place under the Act is banned, but investigation of its historical character may still be permissible. This interpretation has provided a basis for the District Courts to entertain such petitions without directly violating the intent of the Act.
In Sambhal's case, the Court ordered a survey before determining whether a civil suit was maintainable. This unilateral decision (without hearing both sides) has created further controversies about its legality and fairness. Courts should maintain the intent of the 1991 Act by ensuring that disputes challenging the religious character of sites dating back to August 15, 1947, are dismissed, avoiding unnecessary surveys or proceedings that could escalate communal tensions. Are.
Governments and local authorities should facilitate interreligious discussions to peacefully address historical grievances and promote mutual understanding, reduce the risk of violent clashes, and promote communal harmony.
– .
Image Credit: KhasKhabar.