New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Friday restrained the Uttar Pradesh government and the Sambhal district administration from taking any steps regarding the disputed well of the Shahi Jama Masjid. Half of this well is inside the mosque and the other half is outside the mosque. The court has talked about the need to maintain communal harmony in this matter. Let us tell you that in this area it is being claimed that there is a Hindu temple in place of the mosque. The Supreme Court bench which has stayed the case included Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjeev Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar. The bench ordered that no action would be taken on the notice issued by the Sambhal Municipal Council in December 2024. The notice talked about cleaning the well, inspection of the property and opening the exterior of the mosque for public use. The court has said to keep a strict vigil on this matter. Let us tell you that this matter will now be heard on 21st February. The court has directed the district administration to file the status report within two weeks.
A petition was filed in this matter by the management committee of Shahi Jama Masjid. The order of the lower court was challenged by him, in which the survey of the mosque was ordered. The management of the mosque alleged that the survey was conducted without any information and the action was taken illegally and in a hurry. After this survey, violent clashes took place in Sambhal on 24 November 2024, in which four people were killed and many were injured.
Mosque’s lawyer demanded a ban
During the hearing in the Supreme Court, senior advocate Huzaifa Ahmadi requested the court to stop the district administration from investigating the well and taking action on it. He said that the well is located inside and outside the mosque and it would be inappropriate to open it for public use without the permission of the court. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, opposed this argument. He said that it is a public well and is the property of the state. Now the situation is peaceful, but some people want to create trouble in it.
What’s the objection to opening a well?
On this the Supreme Court said, “This is water. Everyone should be allowed to use it. You yourself are saying that half of it is inside the mosque and half is outside. If a person uses water from outside then there should be no problem.” Ahmadi said in response, “This well was completely covered and was never used. The mosque uses its water through a pump. In the municipal notice it has been called Hari Mandir. There has been talk of water being used for worship and bathing of devotees.” On this, the Supreme Court rejected the decision of the Uttar Pradesh government and said, “What is this? Don’t escalate it. It is not appropriate to do this.” The court demanded a status report from the government and ordered that the municipal council’s notice related to the well would not be effective.
Hindu side mentioned SC’s old order
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the Hindu side, reminded that the Mosque Management Committee had already been ordered by the Supreme Court to approach the Allahabad High Court in this matter and not to approach the Supreme Court directly. On this the Supreme Court said, “Yes, we know. We wanted them to go to the High Court, but we are keeping a close watch on the matter so that there is no violence and peace and harmony is maintained.” Let us tell you that this controversy increased when it was claimed in a lawsuit that the Shahi Jama Masjid was built at the place where a Hindu temple earlier stood. It is known as “Harihar Temple”. The Hindu side had demanded access to worship in the temple. After this the local court ordered a survey of the mosque. On November 29, the Supreme Court stopped the Sessions Court from taking any action in this case. Apart from this, the Mosque Management Committee was advised to go to Allahabad High Court. The court had asked the Uttar Pradesh government to take steps to maintain peace in the area and try to resolve the dispute through mediation between the communities.
