Tensions have been rising in Sambhal, the Uttar Pradesh district, ever since the court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid was carried out on November 19 following claims that the mosque, built by Mughal emperor Babur in 1526, replaced an existing temple that once stood at the mosque’s site. The Supreme Court has asked the Sambhal trial court not to proceed with the suit against the Shahi Jama Masjid at Chandausi until the petition filed by the mosque community against the survey order is listed in the Allahabad High Court.
The court has also directed that the report of the advocate commissioner be kept in a sealed cover. The Supreme Court has instructed authorities to take all necessary actions to maintain peace and harmony in the district.
In a conversation with NewsX, Athar Zia, Impar Panelist; Kailash Vasdev, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court; Sumeet Peer, Political Commentator; and Manasvi Thapar, Political Analyst, joined Executive Editor Megha Sharma to provide deeper insight into the matter.
View on the Trial Court’s Action
Beginning the conversation, one panelist laid down his thoughts about the fact that, in hindsight, the trial court could have been a bit more sensible and attuned to the demographics and cultural fabric of the region before issuing that order that had been the cause of violence and unrest so far. He said, “Actually, the trial court should have been very sensitive to the Constitution and the law, which is very evident. The 1991 Worship Act has clearly and categorically stated that there can’t be alterations in any worship place that existed as of August 15, 1947.
Second, one can imagine the kind of fear, stress, and upheaval in a particular community when a survey of this kind takes place on a worship place that has existed for 250 years, and where there has been no dispute or controversy. Despite that, just because someone files an application for a survey based on certain historical, unreliable facts, the trial court, which is a judicious body, takes such an action. I mean, it is quite disappointing, and it is very, very saddening.”
Judicial Responsibility in the Bigger Picture
Moving forward, Senior Advocate Kailash Vasdev discussed whether courts and judges have the liberty to consider the bigger picture beyond the laws they must follow, taking into account broader implications that could harm the peace, security, and harmony of the region, and if it is their duty to adopt a morally responsible stance. He said, “In any matter which comes to court, there are two sides: one will support the order, one will oppose the jurisdiction. In this case, a personal view: the Places of Worship Act of 1971 precludes the jurisdiction of a court to go into any dispute which may be raised with regard to a property that was used by a particular religious denomination prior to 1947. We must, apart from the political ethos of what our personal thinking are, understand that the judiciary per se normally does not seek to invite unnecessary criticism. However, it invokes its jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding a dispute. In this case, the judge could have easily said, ‘This is not a matter to be gone into,’ closed the case, because it is contrary to the provisions of the Act. He could have gone one step further by saying, ‘I’m not appointing a commission; I will hear the suit on its maintainability and otherwise,’ and then take a call. Passing orders of this kind very often ignites passions, and this is precisely what has happened.”
Impact of the Babri Masjid-Ayodhya Temple Dispute
Continuing the conversation, Sumeet Peer laid down his thoughts on the fact that the Babri Masjid-Ayodhya Temple dispute, which was resolved in the Supreme Court, has opened a Pandora’s box. He said, “The first, the place which is there, look, there is a mention in Babarnama that there was a temple, this was demolished by Babur, it’s in Babarnama itself. The point number one, if you look at the disputed structure, you can see the remains of the temple. That’s point number two. And point number three, in the Places of Worship Act, there’s a clear provision: before 1991, when the Act came into place, the nature of the place since its inception has changed, and it can be subject to survey. That’s why the Gyanvapi survey was allowed. That is why even the High Court, Sessions Court, and the Honorable Supreme Court said yes, the survey is legal, even Justice Chandrachud approved the survey. So that’s the point. There is a precedence, there is a process by which it has happened, and it has gone through the scrutiny of time.”
Concerns Over Unrestricted Surveys
Speaking on the same question of whether a Pandora’s box has been opened, Advocate Manasvi Thapar expressed his thoughts on the matter and said, “I don’t think with this kind of surveys being asked, the buck is going to stop anywhere. I think with this idea of the Places of Worship Act, it does not uphold any sanity because any day anyone can come and say, ‘Let’s have a survey, and let’s go.’ Let’s have a survey of the entire country. This entire country is a Hindu land, we know about it. Hinduism started from this country, and every particular inch of this particular property belongs—this country belongs—and it was the invaders. We’ll have churches; they also came from the Britishers and the Christians when they came to our country. We have Muslims, mosques which came to our country, and they have their own religious sites. Everything was a Hindu land. So now, let’s have an entire survey of the seventh-largest country in the world and say that this is a Hindu land. When you dig, you’ll find that there would be remains of our ancestors which will belong to Hindus, and now then, there would be Buddhist sites also which will have Hindu artifacts; there would be Jain sites also which would have Hindu artifacts; there would be Hindu artifacts also in temples, in Sikh gurdwaras. Now, my main point is, where are we going? So, an Act was made in place in 1991, that was the Places of Worship Act. What is the relevance of that Act now in 2024? I feel that Act is of no importance to this country now.”
The debate surrounding the Shahi Jama Masjid survey, the Places of Worship Act, and the potential consequences of further surveys highlights the complexity of handling religious and historical disputes in a multicultural nation. The issue reveals the challenges faced by the judiciary in balancing legal precedents with the cultural sensitivities of the region. While legal provisions must be followed, it is clear that the broader social and political implications of such decisions must be carefully considered to prevent further unrest.
ALSO READ:Indian Spices Not Banned In Singapore And Hong Kong: Prataprao Jadhav
