Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

The Sambhal mosque, a 16th-century protected national monument, has become the latest flashpoint in a series of religious disputes across Uttar Pradesh. A petition is filed which claims the mosque was built on the site of an ancient Hari Har Mandir, mirroring similar claims in Varanasi, Mathura, and Dhar. A court-ordered survey on 19th November quickly escalated into a violent confrontation on 24th November, resulting in the tragic loss of five lives, including two teenagers, and raising serious concerns about communal tensions in the region. 

What is the main Issue of the matter? 

• A petition alleging that the 16th-century Jama Masjid in Sambhal was constructed on the site of an ancient Hari Har Mandir, like ongoing claims in other historical religious sites across Uttar Pradesh. 
• The first survey on 19th November was conducted peacefully in the presence of local authorities, including the Superintendent of Police and district magistrate. 
• A second survey on 24th November took a violent turn, with the survey team preceded by a local mahant and followed by people chanting religious slogans, leading to significant tensions. 
• The situation escalated into stone-pelting, with conflicting accounts from police and local representatives about the use of force, resulting in the death of five people, including two teenagers. 
• The Sambhal mosque is one of three mosques built during Mughal Emperor Babur's reign, with historical debates about its exact origins - some attributing it to Babur's general Mir Hindu Beg, while others suggest a Tughlaq-era origin. 
• This controversy is part of a broader pattern of religious site disputes in India, where historical mosques are being challenged on claims of previous Hindu temple locations, raising complex questions about historical ownership and cultural heritage. 

What was the Court Observation? 

• On 19th November, the civil judge accepted the petition which claimed that the 16th-century Jama Masjid was built at the site of an ancient Hari Har Mandir. 
• The court immediately ordered a photographic and videographic survey of the mosque on the same day the petition was filed. 
• The court directed that the survey report be presented before it on November 29, setting a specific timeline for the investigation. 
• The court allowed the survey to be conducted without consulting the mosque's intezamia committee, which was a notable aspect of the judicial order. 
• The initial survey on 19th November  was permitted to be conducted peacefully, with the presence of local authorities including the Superintendent of Police and district magistrate. 
• The court's order appeared to be proceeding along similar lines as other historical religious site disputes in Uttar Pradesh, such as the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and Eidgah Masjid in Mathura, where surveys and legal challenges have been initiated based on historical claims. 

The Places of Worship Act, 1991 

• The Act fundamentally aims to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they existed on 15th August 1947, by prohibiting any conversion of religious sites between different denominations or within the same denomination, with strict penalties including up to three years of imprisonment and monetary fines for violations. 
• The legislation includes critical provisions that not only prevent future conversions but also terminate existing legal proceedings related to religious site conversions before 1947, with specific exceptions for ancient monuments, archaeological sites, and the Ayodhya dispute. 
• While the Act broadly seeks to maintain communal harmony by freezing the religious status of places of worship, recent court interpretations have allowed inquiries into the historical religious character of sites, creating a complex legal landscape that challenges the Act's original intent. 
• The Act represents a significant legislative attempt to prevent religious disputes by legally mandating the preservation of religious sites' status as they were now of India's independence, with carefully defined exceptions and enforcement mechanisms. 
• When introducing the bill in Parliament, then Home Minister S.B. Chavan emphasized that the legislation aimed to restore communal harmony and prevent further religious disputes over places of worship. 
• While the Act was primarily conceived in the context of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, that specific case was kept outside its purview as it was already sub-judice when the law was passed. 
• In civil suits involving religious sites, the Act generally bars claims seeking to change the religious character of a place of worship as it existed in 1947, effectively creating a legal barrier against such conversions. 
• Despite the Act's provisions, recent court cases like Gyanvapi and Mathura have seen district courts accepting civil suits challenging the religious status of mosques, ruling that these cases fall outside the Act's purview. 
• The law represents a legislative attempt to prevent further religious tensions by legally maintaining the religious status quo of places of worship as they existed at the time of India's independence. 

How Does Judicial Interpretation Impact the Implementation of the Places of Worship Act, 1991? 

• Despite the Places of Worship Act of 1991, courts have been allowing title suits challenging the religious status of mosques, particularly in Varanasi and Mathura, while a constitutional challenge to the Act is pending before the Supreme Court. 
• In May 2022, Justice DY Chandrachud provided a critical legal interpretation, stating that while changing a religious place's nature is barred, "ascertaining" the religious character of a place as of August 15, 1947, may not violate the Act's provisions. 
• This interpretation effectively creates a legal pathway for courts to allow inquiries into the historical religious character of a place of worship, without directly changing its current status. 
• The Supreme Court currently has four separate petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act, with a Bench headed by then-CJI UU Lalit directing the government to file a response in September 2022 - a directive that remains unaddressed two years later. 
• In both Mathura and Gyanvapi cases, the mosque committees have challenged this interpretation, arguing that such inquiries fundamentally undermine the Act's intent to maintain the religious status quo. 
• The Supreme Court has not yet conclusively decided whether the 1991 Act bars even the filing of such pleas or just prevents the final change of worship nature, leaving a significant legal ambiguity. 
• In the Sambhal case, the district court moved unusually quickly, issuing a survey order before even determining the maintainability of the civil suit, and implementing the order before potential challenges could be raised in the High Court. 

Conclusion  

The Sambhal mosque controversy reveals the delicate and volatile nature of historical religious sites in India, where competing narratives of cultural and religious heritage often lead to conflict. What was historically a peaceful coexistence has been disrupted by legal challenges and rising communal tensions. This incident states the importance of resolving such matters with sensitivity and fairness to preserve peace and respect diverse histories.