Supreme Court Asks Sambhal Mosque Committee Factions To Resolve Dispute After 2 Petitions Filed Against Same HC Order

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked rival factions of the Sambhal Mosque Committee to resolve their internal dispute after noting that two special leave petitions had been filed against the same Allahabad High Court judgment through different advocates on record.

“Let the board pass resolution. We don't want to step into your dargah. It is between all you people. We don't want to get into that. You sit down and then sort it out. It is rather embarrassing for us to get into this”, the Court remarked.

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing the challenge to the High Court order upholding a trial court direction to appoint an advocate commissioner to survey the mosque in a suit alleging that it was built after demolishing a temple.

At the outset, Justice Narasimha said this was the first time the Court had encountered two SLPs filed against the same order by different advocates.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi submitted that he was appearing for the person who had filed the vakalatnama in the suit. Counsel for the other SLP petitioner said he represented the Secretary while Ahmadi appeared for the Vice President, adding that he had been handling the matter for a long time.

Justice Narasimha described the situation as “unfortunate” and asked the parties to sort out the issue among themselves. Ahmadi said the other side was not willing to yield and that his SLP was properly authorised.

Justice Narasimha urged the parties to have the board pass a resolution and resolve the dispute internally, as it did not want to get into their internal affairs.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the respondent(plaintiffs in the suit), submitted that questions about authorisation could be examined by the trial court instead of continuing proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Ahmadi opposed this, contending that there was no question of the trial proceeding when the Supreme Court had granted an injunction.

The bench asked the parties to settle the issue as it did not want to prolong the matter, noting that it had already been passed over multiple times. It indicated that the case should be concluded quickly once the issue was resolved. The matter was listed for next Tuesday.

Background

The present SLP challenges the May 19, 2025 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which allowed a civil suit relating to the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal to proceed, holding that it was not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

The suit was filed by eight Hindu plaintiffs claiming that the mosque was constructed in 1526 after partially demolishing a temple dedicated to Kalki. They seek access to the site, which is a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

On November 19, 2024, the trial court appointed an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of the CPC to carry out a local investigation of the mosque premises. The Commissioner's visit in November 2024 led to communal violence in the area. The Supreme Court later stayed the trial proceedings while the Mosque Committee's challenge to the survey order was pending before the High Court.

The High Court held that the trial court was right in granting permission under Section 80(2) of the CPC, which allows a plaintiff to file a suit against the government without waiting for the mandatory two-month notice period. It noted that notice had in fact been served on October 21, 2024 and no objection was raised by the government.

It upheld the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner, stating that a local investigation could be ordered even without notice in appropriate cases.

On the question of the 1991 Act, it held that the suit was not barred because it sought enforcement of a right of public access under Section 18 of the 1958 Act and did not seek to alter the religious character of the site. It also noted that the mosque had been declared a protected monument in 1920 and referred to a 1927 agreement between its mutawallis and the Collector of Moradabad recognising the role of the Archaeological Survey of India in its maintenance.

The Mosque Committee has challenged this judgment before the Supreme Court. In August last year, the Court ordered status quo on the suit and continued the interim protection on September 1, 2025. The Court also highlighted that two separate SLPs had been filed by the Mosque Committee against the same High Court judgment through different advocates on record and directed the Registry to report which petition was properly instituted. The interim order has remained in force since then.

Case Details – Committee of Management Jami Masjid, Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) Diary No. 46111 of 2025 (AoR Anil Kumar) and Committee of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal, Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal v. Hari Shankar Jain | SLP (C) 21599/2025 (AoR Fuzail Ahmad)