Jalgaon Mosque Dispute : Supreme Court Directs Municipal Council To Keep Main Entrance Key, Allows Opening Of Back Gate For Namaz

To state the background of the case briefly, the Collector had passed an interim order restraining people from offering prayers at the mentioned mosque and directed the Jumma Masjid Trust Committee to hand over the keys of the mosque to the Erandol municipal council's chief officer.

This order came against the backdrop of a complaint filed by the Hindu group Pandavwada Sangharsh Samiti (PSS), claiming that the mosque in question is a temple and accused the local Muslim community of encroachment.

The petitioner trust approached the High Court against the Collector's order. Initially, the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad bench, stayed this order, and prima facie observed that the collector passed this order without being satisfied that there was the likelihood of a breach of peace. However, the High Court ultimately dismissed the committee's petition as infructuous and directed the petitioner to hand over the keys to the Council. The High Court relied on the Apex Court's decision in Ouseph Mathai and others vs. M. Abdul Khadir (2002) 1 SCC 31 to observe that a grant of stay does not automatically amount to an extension of statutory protection. 

It was this order that was challenged before the Top Court.

Initially, while issuing notice, the Top Court (on April 10) stayed the return of these keys. However, in today's order, the Division Bench clarified its earlier order and stated:

1. “The key of the main entrance gate of the entire compound shall remain with the municipal council
2. There shall be status quo with regard to the masjid compound and it shall be under the control of the wakf board or the petitioner society till further orders.
3. The egress and ingress…temples or monuments shall be free from all kinds of hinderance and the people of different religion shall be allowed to visit without any disturbance.
4. The key of the (back side) gate will also be remained with the council and it will be the duty of the council to depute an official to open that gate well before the commencement of namaz in morning and till all the namaz are performed during the day.
5. However, no encroachment of any kind shall be made by the parties.”

Court-Room Proceedings

During the hearing, Justice Kant asked the Counsel appearing for the Wakf board for its stance. To this, the Counsel replied that the board is supporting the petitioner right from the beginning.

Justice Kant said that the board was under the statutory obligation to look after the property and that it could not be handed over to a private entity.

Following this, the Senior Counsel Guru Krishna Kumar, appearing for the municipal council, submitted that the property has been declared as an ancient monument. Responding to this, Justice Kant said that it is an ancient monument, but at the same time, it is also a masjid where namaz is offered.

“To harmonise the provisions, what it appears from the property is one, there is a masjid where namaz and other rituals are performed. There is some open space…there is probably a Jain temple also. So, the management of Jain temple is concerned, that will be looked after by the municipality….Masjid part only wakf board can look after and not private entity.,” Justice Kant added.

Moving forward, the board's counsel pointed out that the order passed by the collector was an interim one and suggested that the collector may decide the matter and pass the final order.

Ultimately, the Court, while passing the aforesaid order, also added:

“Learned Counsel, Senior Counsels for the parties agree that the matter may be disposed off. All other issue will be resolved by the (collector) in the pending proceedings. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of those issues.”

Case Title: JUMMA MASJID TRUST COMITTEE vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA., Diary No.- 16176 - 2024