Sambhal Mosque Row: UP Court Sets April 28 To Hear Plea Over Temple Claim

A district court (UP) on Wednesday has scheduled April 28 as the next date for hearings in a contentious legal dispute concerning the Shahi Jama Mosque, wherein the petitioners allege that the structure was originally a Harihar Temple.

Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aditya Singh presided over the matter and deferred further proceedings to the designated date.

Procedural History & Litigation Developments

The petition was initially filed on November 19, 2023, in a different court before being transferred to its current jurisdiction. The petitioners assert that the respondent was obligated to submit a written statement within the prescribed timeframe but has yet to comply with this procedural requirement.

Advocate Gopal Sharma, representing the petitioners, commented, “Today, the hearing took place in the court of Aditya Singh. The next date has been set for April 28. The mosque side’s lawyer was to file their written statement today, but they have not submitted it yet.” Sharma further urged the court to deny any additional extensions for the submission, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining procedural discipline in the adjudicative process.

Judicial Stays & Respondent’s Position

Zafar Ali, the head of the Shahi Jama Masjid, responded by referencing ongoing judicial constraints imposed by superior courts. “There is a stay from the Supreme Court and High Court; therefore, no hearing took place. The date of April 28 has been given,” he stated, implying that the district court’s ability to proceed substantively is contingent on directives from higher judicial authorities.

Constitutional Considerations

This case raises critical constitutional issues, particularly concerning Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee the right to religious freedom and the autonomy of religious institutions. The dispute also engages with broader jurisprudential questions regarding property rights, historical claims, and the adjudicative role of courts in mediating conflicts involving places of worship.

The forthcoming hearing on April 28 is expected to clarify procedural compliance and advance substantive legal arguments.

Additionally, the invocation of judicial stays underscores the role of superior courts in delineating jurisdictional boundaries and adjudicating the interplay between historical assertions and contemporary legal frameworks.

The resolution of this case may establish significant precedent, shaping future litigation concerning religious heritage claims, constitutional protections, and the doctrine of equal access to justice.