The Supreme Court of India today issued notice on a petition filed by the Shahi Jama Masjid Committee, Sambhal, and directed that the status quo be maintained concerning a well situated near the mosque's entrance. 

A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna also instructed the authorities to submit a status report within two weeks.

"Please order status quo..they are calling it a Hari mandir and want to start puja and all..", Senion Advocate Ahmadi appearing for the Mosque Committee told the court today.

The Masjid Committee, in its application before the Supreme Court, alleged that the District Administration in Sambhal is conducting a drive to revive old temples and wells in the city. Reports suggest that 32 unused temples have been restored, and 19 wells have been identified and are being made operational for public use and prayers.

In the main petition, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had earlier directed the Sambhal Shahi Jama Masjid Committee to approach the Allahabad High Court to challenge a civil court's order directing an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey of the 16th-century mosque.

The Masjid Committee has now moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the civil court’s November 19, 2024, order. They claim the ASI survey was conducted in undue haste, with one survey completed within a single day and another carried out with just six hours' notice. A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar is scheduled to hear the plea on November 29, 2024.

 “The manner in which survey was ordered in this case and has been ordered in some other cases will have an immediate impact in a number of cases across the country that have been filed recently concerning places of worship where such orders will have a tendency to inflame communal passions, cause law and order problems and damage the secular fabric of the country,” the petition alleges.

The Masjid Committee has further contended that the suit is barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which expressly prohibits altering the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

“The ex parte impugned order which allowed the survey to be conducted has resulted in quite disturbing events and communal tensions, which has so far claimed 6 lives and would further aggravate the communal tension if the order impugned is not stayed. The order impugned and continuance of the suit stands to not only give rise to widespread communal tensions but also threatens the secular and democratic fabric of the nation,” the petition said.

The Masjid Committee has urged the Supreme Court to establish clear guidelines to prevent routine orders for surveys involving places of worship of different communities, especially when such orders are issued without hearing the defendants or providing them sufficient time to seek judicial remedies.

The contested November 19 order, issued by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aditya Singh, arose from a suit filed by Advocate Hari Shankar Jain and seven others. The suit alleged that the mosque was built on the ruins of a temple dedicated to Lord Kalki, supposedly destroyed during Babur’s invasion. Citing texts like Baburnamah and Ain-e-Akbari, the plaintiffs argued that the site holds historical Hindu significance and sought unrestricted access for Hindu worshippers.

The civil court appointed Advocate Ramesh Raghav as a commissioner to conduct a survey and directed him to submit a report by November 29. The initial survey and a subsequent one on November 24 in Chandausi town triggered violent protests. Clashes between protesters and police led to incidents of stone-pelting and vehicle arson, resulting in four deaths, though autopsies ruled out police firing as the cause. In response, authorities imposed prohibitory orders, suspended internet services, and deployed additional forces to control the situation.

Amid the unrest, a separate plea has been filed in the Allahabad High Court, seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the violence that followed the court-ordered survey.