Supreme Court directs court to quash proceedings in Sambhal case | Latest News India

Interestingly, the Supreme Court stated that it would not rule on the petition and requested that it be relisted the week of January 6, suggesting that it was aware of the larger implications of the case. Protests against the poll have led to four deaths in the Uttar Pradesh city.

The Supreme Court also stressed the need for the Uttar Pradesh government to maintain “peace and harmony” in the communal dispute.

Further underlining the importance of neutrality and objectivity, a bench comprising Chief Justice (CJI) of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar suggested that the state should examine community mediation under Section 43 of the Mediation Act, which makes community settlement more sensitive Disputes through the district provides for -level committees.

“We don’t want any disruption. Please ensure peace and harmony… Also see Section 43 of your Mediation Act which deals with community mediation and district committees… We have to be absolutely and completely neutral,” the bench told Attorney General KM Nataraj, who is in charge of the mediation The government of Uttar Pradesh was responsible and assured the court that necessary measures had been taken to prevent any public order problems.

Also read: Cautious optimism in Sambhal after SC order; Friday prayer peaceful

The bench refrained from commenting on the merits of the case but made it clear that the trial court would not take any action until the matter was heard in the Allahabad High Court. It has also been directed that when the Law Commissioner submits his inquiry report, such report will be made public only at the hearing in the Supreme Court and no further action will be taken.

The bench refrained from commenting on the merits of the case but made it clear that the trial court would not take any action until the matter was heard in the Allahabad High Court. It has also been directed that when the Law Commissioner submits his inquiry report, such report will be made public only at the hearing in the Supreme Court and no further action will be taken.

“If the decision had not been made, who knows what would have happened next and the social fabric would have been in ruins. The business suffered greatly because the internet did not work. I hope both business and life will return to normal soon,” said Suhel Parvez, a local businessman.

“The intervention of the Supreme Court has restored confidence in the judiciary. The violence, which left four people dead, could have escalated into a communal clash but restraint from both sides prevented it,” said local activist Sunil Saurav.

Also read: Akhilesh questions the reasons for the second probe into Sambhal Mosque

The court was hearing a plea from the mosque’s management committee challenging a court order ordering an investigation into the mosque, raising questions about its legality and the manner in which it was conducted. The petition called for an immediate suspension of the survey, arguing that such surveys, particularly at historic places of worship, could increase inter-communal tensions and undermine the country’s secular fabric.

Two such investigations, conducted on behalf of a local civil court, sparked widespread tensions in Sambhal, which culminated in violent clashes on November 24 in which four people died and several were injured, including police personnel. Since then, police have arrested 25 people, including political leaders, and have named over 2,000 unidentified people in several FIRs.

The Uttar Pradesh government late Thursday night appointed former Allahabad Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Arora to head a three-member committee to probe incidents of violence triggered by the poll.

The dispute centers on the Shahi Jama Masjid in Chandausi, which, according to the committee, has been continuously used as a mosque since the 16th century. However, a lawsuit filed on November 19, 2024 by eight plaintiffs, including Supreme Court lawyer Hari Shankar Jain, said the mosque was built on the site of a “Harihar temple” and they sought access to the site .

On the same day, the Sambhal Civil Court granted an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and appointed a commissioner to conduct a photography and videography inspection of the mosque. The order was issued unilaterally without informing the mosque management. Within hours of the order, the survey was conducted, and another survey was conducted five days later, with barely six hours notice to the mosque committee, the lawsuit says.

Senior lawyer Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the mosque committee, called on the Supreme Court to intervene directly to prevent further communal tensions and strengthen judicial propriety in dealing with sensitive disputes related to historical places of worship. Supported by lawyer Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Ahmadi pointed out that such polls are increasingly being used as a tool to provoke communal tensions.

The court asked Ahmadi to consider appeals to the Supreme Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution (writing jurisdiction) or the court’s revisional jurisdiction.

At the same time, the bench added, “We don’t want anything to happen in the meantime.” It clarified that the trial court should not proceed until the Supreme Court deals with the matter, noting, “Normally we would.” Do not allow skipping to this court… (but) they have the right to challenge the order (of questioning) in the Supreme Court, and it should be listed before the court… Let the court take no action until the next date seize.”

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the Hindu plaintiffs who filed the suit in the Sambhal Civil Court, pointed out that the next hearing in the trial court is scheduled for January 8. In its response, the court stated: “We do not want anything to happen in the meantime. Don’t let anything happen in court for now. And we will keep this SLP (special leave application) pending here too.”

The committee’s petition to the Supreme Court argued that the action violates the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibits conversion of the character of a religious place as it existed on August 15, 1947 . There was no mention in the Supreme Court’s orders of the 1991 law. What is noteworthy is that since March 2021, a number of petitions have been pending before the Supreme Court – some seeking to abolish the law, others demanding stricter enforcement of this law.