Supreme Court reserves order on challenge to Sambhal mosque survey

…survey of the Mughal-era mosque, which the Hindu side claims was built after razing a Harihar temple. The mosque committee led by senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi along with advocate Mohammad Nizam Pasha pointed out that the suit is not maintainable as the issue falls under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 that preserves the character of a place of worship existing as on August 15, 1947 and does not allow conversion of its religious character. Additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj, representing the UP government, said that the suit is at a “nascent” stage and the state does not wish to go into the merits of the case, as it is duty bound to protect…

…the character of a place of worship existing as on August 15, 1947 and does not allow conversion of its religious character. Additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj, representing the UP government, said that the suit is at a “nascent” stage and the state does not wish to go into the merits of the case, as it is duty bound to protect the interest of both the Hindu and Muslim parties. Since the crux of the proceedings is whether the 1991 Act would apply, especially section 3 which bars conversion of a place of worship, ASG Nataraj said that the bar on further proceedings in the suit will only arise…

…Nataraj said that the bar on further proceedings in the suit will only arise if it seeks “conversion” of the place of worship. The Hindu side represented by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain opposed the appeal, arguing that the structure is a protected monument since 1920 and the 1991 Act excludes such structures from its ambit. Jain cited the Bhojshala case in which the Madhya Pradesh high court held that the site was a Goddess Vagdevi temple. The Bhojshala site was under the management and control of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).…

…were maintainable. Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, told the apex court on Friday that the state does not want to get into the respective claims of the parties. " As the State, we don't want to get into the respective claims of either of the parties. As the State, we are committed and bound to protect the interests of all, " the law officer said. He referred to the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The 1991 law prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious…