Supreme Court Refuses To Modify Its Order On Jalgaon Mosque Dispute, Allows To File Review

The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and K.V Vishwanathan, however, granted liberty to file a review petition against the order.

At the commencement of the hearing, Justice Kant told Senior Advocate Devdatt Kamat (for Applicant-Mosque Committee) that the order was passed in the presence of the parties. When Kamat said that new incidents have started to happen due to this order, Justice Kant said “Challenge those incidents.”

Following this Kamat insisted that there was just difficulty with one word in the order. To this, Justice Kant said “We were saying 'temple or other temples'. Now, these words were used three times in the presence of your counsel.” However, Kamat replied that there is no statutory evidence that there is a temple.

“If there is no statutory evidence then it should have been pointed out to us. In High Court's order it was there and in our order it had been mentioned in presence of the counsel.,” came the reply. 

Ultimately, Kamat said that he would file a review. In view of this, the following order was passed:

“Ld counsel for the applicant seeks and is permitted to withdraw the misc application with liberty to file the review application.”

In the impugned order, it was also made clear that the municipal council would depute an official to open the gate well before the commencement of namaz in the morning and till all the namaz are performed. Furthermore, the Court also stated that the masjid compound should be under the control of the Wakf board or the petitioner till further orders.

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 April 19 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.”

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