The Allahabad High Court has refused to stop a court-ordered survey of the centuries-old Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, dismissing an attempt by the mosque’s managing committee to block the proceedings. The court’s decision gives a green light to a highly contentious inquiry into whether the mosque stands on the ruins of a Hindu temple demolished in the Mughal era.
The challenge, brought before the High Court, stemmed from a local civil court’s directive in November 2024, which appointed an Advocate Commissioner to survey the mosque premises. That original suit, filed by advocate Hari Shankar Jain and seven others, claims the mosque was built atop a destroyed temple—an assertion that has already ignited communal clashes in Sambhal.
But even as the fires of the larger legal battle smoulder in the background—thanks to the Supreme Court’s freeze on rulings that touch on the religious identity of historical sites—the Allahabad High Court has made clear that the survey itself can go ahead.
Adding weight to the court’s stance was the Archaeological Survey of India, which filed a detailed counterclaim. The ASI stated unequivocally that the Shahi Jama Masjid is listed as a Centrally Protected Monument and not a registered place of public worship. The designation traces back over a century to a 1920 Gazette Notification, which, according to the ASI, conspicuously left out any mention of religious status for the site.
That omission, the ASI argued, is not just bureaucratic trivia—it legally cements the site’s classification under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. As such, it falls under central protection, stripping religious committees of any legal claim to ownership or control.
The High Court had reserved judgment on May 3 and delivered its decision Monday. While the broader constitutional and historical implications of the dispute continue to hover over courtrooms across the country, for now, the road to surveying the Sambhal mosque remains unobstructed.
The debate surrounding heritage, faith, and ownership rumbles on—but this round, the judiciary has spoken clearly: the survey may proceed.
