Beyond Gyanvapi, Mathura & Sambhal : A Look At Cases Pending Against Masjids/Dargahs
Debby Jain
3 Dec 2024 10:01 AM IST
Legal disputes over religious places of worship deepen communal polarization, as shown by the recent survey order against a 16th-century mosque in Sambhal, which triggered violence killing four persons.
Even so, almost a dozen of such cases are pending before different courts in India, disputing the character of religious places, despite the protection offered by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
Let's look at these cases in detail.
(1) Teele Wali Masjid, Lucknow, UP
In 2013, a civil suit was filed before a Lucknow court (UP) raising claims over the site of Teele Wali Masjid and seeking a survey. It was alleged that the Teele Wali Masjid was constructed during the reign of Mughal Ruler Aurangzeb by demolishing a Hindu religious structure existing at Laxman Teela.
In 2017, Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow held the suit to be maintainable, turning down an application filed by the Masjid management to reject the plaint under O7 R11 CPC. Thereafter, the revision plea filed against the order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge's court. Challenging both these orders, the Masjid Side moved the Allahabad High Court, which sought replies from the opposite parties in April 2023.
The same year, another suit was filed seeking an injunction prohibiting the Muslim community from interfering in the performance of darshan/rituals within the Teele Wali Masjid premises. The Mosque side challenged the maintainability of the suit, by asserting that it was barred under the provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 and the Waqf Act, 1995. However, in September 2023, the concerned civil judge rejected the challenge to maintainability.
Although the Masjid management preferred a revision petition, the same was also dismissed in February 2024.
(2) Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque, Qutub Minar, Delhi
In 2020, a suit was filed before a Delhi court, on behalf of a Jain deity, claiming that the Quwwat ul-Islam Masjid situated within the Qutub Minar Complex in Mehrauli was erected using the ruins of 27 temples. The specific allegation was that around 27 Hindu and Jain temples were destroyed in 1198 under the rule of Mughal Emperor Qutub-Din-Aibak to construct the existing mosque.
The prayers were opposed by ASI, saying that Qutub Minar was not a place of worship and that the existing status of the “centrally-protected” monument could not be altered. It was further ASI's claim that revival of worship was not allowed if it was not practised when the monument was conferred protection.
Ultimately, the civil court noted that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Places of Worship Act and rejected the plaint under O7 R11 CPC. The court remarked that wrongs of the past could not be a basis for disturbing present peace, and added that every endeavour should be made to enforce the objective of the Places of Worship Act, the purpose of which is to maintain the secular character of the nation.
The civil court order was challenged before an Additional District Judge and the matter is pending. The next hearing is scheduled on December 12.
(3) Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi, UP
In 1991, a suit was filed by devotees of the Kashi Vishwanath temple (near which the Gyanvapi Mosque is situated), alleging that the Mosque was built after the Lord Vishweshwar temple was destroyed by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. The suit proceedings however remained stayed.
In 2021, another suit was filed by female devotees seeking the right to worship certain deities claimed to be found in the mosque daily. The case witnessed a major turn in May 2022, when an Advocate Commissioner claimed that a 'shivlinga' was found in the wuzukhana area of the mosque. The Varanasi trial court directed the sealing of the place/area where 'shivlinga' was reportedly found. The Supreme Court clarified that the Varanasi court order would not restrict Muslims' right to access the mosque to offer namaz and perform religious observances. The Supreme Court also transferred the suits to the Varanasi District Court.
In September 2022, the Varanasi court dismissed the mosque management's plea to reject the suit as barred by the Places of Worship Act. In May 2023, the Allahabad High Court upheld the Varanasi court order. In December 2023, the maintainability of certain other suits was upheld by the HC.
In July 2023, the Varanasi court directed ASI to conduct a “scientific survey” of the Gyanvapi mosque premises except for the area that was sealed (wuzukhana) . On August 4, the Supreme Court refused to stop the ASI from carrying out survey through non-invasive methods.
In January 2024, the Varanasi court allowed the performance of Hindu rituals inside one of the sealed cellars/basement/tehkhana (vyas ji ka tehkhana) of the Gyanvapi complex. A challenge to this order was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. In April 2024, the Supreme Court ordered status quo on the performance of namaz in the mosque and Hindu rituals in the tehkhana (cellar).
In a recent Supreme Court hearing, the plaintiffs informed that an application has been filed seeking consolidation of all suits and their transfer from the Varanasi district court to the Allahabad High Court. The Mosque Committee, on the other hand, urged that the petition questioning the maintainability of the suits as barred by the Places of Worship should be heard on priority. After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court called for the Mosque Committee's response to an application filed by the plaintiffs seeking ASI survey of the sealed area of the mosque. The matter has been posted on December 17.
(4) Kamal Maula Mosque, Bhojshala Complex, MP
Bhojshala, an 11th-century ASI-protected monument, is considered by Hindus to be a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, whereas Muslims regard it as the Kamal Maula Mosque. As per a 2003 agreement, Hindus perform puja at the Bhojshala complex on Tuesdays, while Muslims offer namaz there on Fridays.
In 2022, the Hindu Front for Justice filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking a prohibition on Muslims offering namaz in the premises. In March, 2024, the High Court directed ASI to conduct a scientific investigation, survey and excavation at the Bhojshala complex.
In a challenge raised by the mosque side, the Supreme Court precluded ASI from any physical excavation that would change the character of the premises. It was further directed that in the interim, no action should be taken without leave of the top Court on the outcome of the survey.
The matter is tentatively listed before the Supreme Court on December 20.
(5) Shamsi Shahi Masjid, Badaun, UP
In 2022, a petition was filed before a Badaun district court claiming that originally, a temple of Neelkanth Mahadev stood in place of the Shamsi Shahi Masjid.
Seeking permission to worship at the site, the petitioner claimed, on the basis of a Budaun gazetteer (government record), that the mosque was built by emperor Shams-ud-din Iltutmish in 1222 AD after demolishing a stone temple constructed by King Lakhanpal.
The defendants in the case are Shamsi Shahi Masjid Intezamia Committee and Waqf Board. According to the former, the mosque is about 850 years old and there is no temple at the site.
According to reports, a Civil Judge (Senior Division) has already heard the government and the defendants. The defendants have called for rejection of the case under O7 R11 CPC. A report of the Department of Archaeology has also been presented to the court.
The next hearing in the matter is scheduled in December's first week.
(6) Atala Masjid, Jaunpur, UP
A petition has been filed before an Agra court claiming that the Atala Masjid was originally a temple dedicated to Atala Mata. This mosque is currently under the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board management.
The petitioner alleges that the temple was repurposed into a mosque following an order by Feroze Shah of the Tughluq dynasty.
(7) Shahi Eidgah Masjid, Mathura, UP
The controversy is related to Mughal emperor Aurangzeb-era Shahi Eidgah mosque at Mathura, which is alleged to have been built after demolishing a temple at the birthplace of Lord Krishna.
In 1968, a 'compromise agreement' was brokered between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan, which is the temple management authority, and the Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah allowing both places of worship to operate simultaneously. However, the validity of this agreement has now been doubted by fresh suits filed in 2021. The litigants' contention is that the compromise agreement was made fraudulently and is invalid in law. Claiming a right to worship at the disputed site, many of them have sought the Shahi Eidgah mosque's removal.
In May, 2023, the Allahabad High Court transferred to itself all suits pending before the Mathura Court. This transfer order was challenged in the Supreme Court by the mosque committee, and later by the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board.
In December, 2023, the High Court allowed a plea seeking the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the Shahi Eidgah Mosque. The Mosque Committee challenged this order, and in January 2024, the Supreme Court stayed its implementation.
On August 1, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the plea of the mosque side challenging the maintainability of the suits filed by the deity and Hindu worshippers. The High Court rejected the contention that the suits were barred by the Places of Worship Act, Limitation Act 1963, and Specific Relief Act 1963.
In the Mosque Committee's challenge to the August 1 order of the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court is now examining whether an intra-court appeal against the rejection of a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC would be maintainable before the High Court.
The matter is slated to be taken up on December 9.
(8) Jama Masjid, Sambhal, UP
A suit was filed this year by 8 plaintiffs, claiming that the Shahi Jama Masjid at Chandausi was built by Mughal emperor Babar in 1526 after demolishing the Shri Hari Har temple that stood there (a temple dedicated to Kalki, the last avatar of Lord Vishnu).
In November, 2024, a Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambhal passed an ex-parte order for a survey of the mosque by an advocate commissioner. According to a report published in The Indian Express, the order was passed within three hours of the application being submitted. This survey triggered violence, which left 4 persons killed and several others injured.
Against the trial court order directing a survey of the mosque, the Sambhal Shahi Jama Masjid Committee approached the Supreme Court. It argued that (i) the survey order was passed hastily, without issuing notice to the Muslim side (ii) the suit was barred by the Places of Worship Act and (iii) the mosque is a 16th century monument protected by the ASI.
Recently, the top Court asked the Sambhal trial court to not proceed in the suit against the Shahi Jama Masjid, till the petition filed by the Mosque Committee against the survey order is listed before the Allahabad High Court. It was also directed that the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who conducted the survey of the mosque, shall be kept in a sealed cover and not be opened in the meantime.
Emphasizing that peace and harmony shall be maintained by the District Administration, the Supreme Court kept the matter pending and ordered that the Mosque Committee's petition before the High Court shall be listed in 3 working days.
(9) Jama Masjid and Dargah of Shaikh Salim Chishti at Fatehpur Sikri, UP
A case was filed before an Agra court this year, claiming that the Sheikh Salim Chishti Dargah inside Fatehpur Sikri fort (and the adjacent mosque) were originally Kamakhya Devi temple. Another case alleged that an idol of Lord Krishna was buried beneath the stairs of Jama Masjid.
Lately, notices were issued in the case(s) to UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, Management Committee of the dargah and Management Committee of Jama Masjid.
(10) Ajmer Sharif Dargah, Rajasthan
In September 2024, a suit was filed by Hindu Sena chief Vishnu Gupta before an Ajmer court seeking right of worship for Hindus at the site of Ajmer Sharif Dargah, Rajasthan, claiming that originally, a Shiva temple existed there.
The plaintiff (in the capacity of Bhagwan Shri Sankatmochan Mahadev Virajman's next friend) claimed that the Dargah appears to have been built on the site of old Hindu temples, partly by converting and partly by adding to the structures already existing, as was usual in the times of early Muslim rulers.
On November 27, the concerned court issued notice to the Dargah Committee, Ministry of Minority Affairs and ASI. The next hearing is scheduled for December 20.
Petition filed against Taj Mahal
In 2022, a writ petition was filed in the Allahabad High Court claiming that Taj Mahal was originally a Shiva Temple known as 'Tejo Mahalaya'. It sought constitution of a fact-finding committee to study the "real history" of the monument. The High Court dismissed the said petition and the Supreme Court confirmed the dismissal, terming the petition "publicity interest litigation".
[The author is a Supreme Court Correspondent with LiveLaw. She can be reached at debby@livelaw.in]
