Sambhal Mosque Dispute: Violence has spread in Sambhal district of western Uttar Pradesh ever since a survey of Shahi Jama Masjid was ordered. So far four people have been killed and many are injured in this violence. This survey was ordered on the basis of a petition which claimed that the Shahi Jama Masjid was built on top of a Hindu temple. The petition said that this mosque was built in 1526 by the Mughal emperor Babar by demolishing a Hindu temple.
Table of Contents
This mosque dispute of Sambhal is similar to the disputes like Gyanvapi Mosque of Varanasi, Shahi Idgah of Mathura and Kamal-Maula Mosque of Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh.
In all these cases, it has been claimed that mosques were built on the site of earlier Hindu temples and hence the purpose of these disputes is to change the religious character of that place. Whereas under the “Places of Worship Act” of 1991, changing the character of any religious place is prohibited.
Now talking about the Shahi Jama Masjid of Sambhal district, even though the court has ordered a survey in this matter, it has not been fully decided whether this petition is valid or not. Meanwhile, incidents of protests and violence have increased, which has further complicated the situation.
What was in the court order? Why was there protest?
On November 19, civil judge Aditya Singh of the Sambhal district and sessions court passed the order on a petition filed by advocate Hari Shankar Jain along with some local priests who had claimed that the Shahi Jama Masjid was built in 1526 by Mughal emperor Babur after demolishing a Hindu temple.
Within hours of the petition being filed, the court appointed a lawyer and ordered the first survey of the mosque. The survey was conducted the same day and a report was ordered by November 29.
The second phase of the survey was conducted on November 24, after which protests broke out in Sambhal and the police had to open fire. Although the mosque’s management committee had been consulted for the survey, the court order was given without hearing both the parties, i.e. it was “one-sided”, which angered the people there.
| What is a Centrally Protected Monument Central Protected Monuments are those preserved by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) under the Central Government’s protection. Their preservation is governed by the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, and subsequent amendments. The purpose of protection is to safeguard historical, cultural, and religious heritage sites. The ASI is responsible for the maintenance and repair of these monuments. No construction or alteration is permitted on Central Protected Monuments. Excavation or any work at these sites cannot be carried out without prior government approval. |
Shahi Jama Masjid is one of the centrally protected monuments
The Jama Masjid of Sambhal is a “protected monument”, declared so on December 22, 1920, under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. It is also on the list of centrally protected monuments on the Archaeological Survey of India website.
A centrally protected monument is a monument or site that is protected by the Indian government through the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). This protection takes place under the “Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904” and its subsequent amendments. Such monuments are considered to be of special historical, cultural, and religious importance and are protected not only for maintenance but also for the public for the purposes of study, research, and tourism.
The special thing about the monuments included in this list is that no construction or alteration is allowed on centrally protected monuments. Excavation or any kind of work cannot be done at these sites without government permission.
What does the law say about the petitioners’ claims?
This is a “civil suit” filed by the petitioners asking the court to determine the right to property. In any civil suit, if the petitioners have filed a petition, their claim is preliminarily accepted and evidence is called for only when the petition is accepted.
But in cases related to religious places, such litigation is prohibited under the “Sthal Pooja Act” of 1991. However, in the Gyanvapi and Mathura cases, the district courts have considered the civil suits filed by Hindu petitioners as “admissible”, that is, the court has accepted these suits saying that these suits are not illegal under the 1991 Act.
| Places of Worship Act – All religious places existing as of August 15, 1947, will remain as they were on that date. – This law is equally applicable to all religious places regardless of the religion. – Disputes arising after August 15, 1947, cannot be raised in court under this Act. – Some contentious sites, like the Babri Masjid, are excluded from the purview of this law. – Violations of this Act can lead to legal actions and penalties. |
What does the “Places of Worship Act, 1991” say?
The Places of Worship Act, 1991 ensures that the status of a religious place as it was on August 15, 1947, is maintained.
The purpose of this Act is to prevent the change of the nature of any religious place, irrespective of the religion it belongs to. According to Section 3 of the Act, it is prohibited to change the nature of any place of worship related to its religion, whether it is a temple, mosque, church, gurudwara or any other religious place, completely or partially. It is clearly stated that no attempt can be made to change any religious place after 15 August 1947.
Babri Masjid dispute exception
However, the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute of 1991 was excluded from the Places of Worship Act because the dispute had gone to court before 1991, i.e. in 1986 itself.
In 1986, a district court had ordered in favour of Ram Janmabhoomi, further complicating the dispute. The matter was sub-judice when the Places of Worship Act, 1991 was passed by Parliament. The Government of India’s position regarding the Places of Worship Act, 1991 was that the law would not apply to disputes that are already sub-judice, so as not to affect a specific case. The Babri Masjid dispute was sub-judice at the time, and was therefore excluded from the law.
What happened in Sambhal case?
In the Sambhal case, events unfolded very quickly. The district court is yet to pass an order on the “admission” of the civil suit, and the survey has already been ordered. The order was acted upon very quickly, without the parties having the opportunity to challenge it in the High Court. The dispute became more serious when violence broke out during the survey, and this has created tension and unrest in Sambhal.
At present, high alert is in force in the area after the violence in Sambhal. Security has been tightened in the area and a large number of security forces have been deployed.
Sambhal District Magistrate Rajendra Pensia claims that the situation in the area is now completely normal and there is no problem there now. Our officers have been monitoring the situation since night and the entire team is present in the area.
Also Read:
