The mosque, believed by some to have been constructed by Mughal emperor Babur in the 16th century after dismantling a temple, became a focal point of contention after a petitioner sought clarity on its origins. The ASI's involvement came after the trial court mandated a detailed examination of the structure to verify its historical claims. The resulting controversy led to incidents of violence, highlighting the case's sensitive nature.
Amid escalating tensions, the Supreme Court intervened, temporarily halting any trial court actions while directing the case to the High Court for further deliberation. The apex court also instructed that the ASI's survey findings remain confidential, ensuring neutrality in ongoing judicial proceedings. The High Court has been tasked with addressing the matter expeditiously, given its widespread implications.
Legal representatives of the mosque's managing committee have argued against the trial court’s decision to commission the survey, calling it an act that could inflame communal discord. They also criticized the rapid appointment of survey teams, which they claimed lacked due deliberation.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for peace, urging district authorities to prevent any further unrest while highlighting the importance of mediation mechanisms to resolve such disputes amicably. The case is scheduled for further hearings in early January 2025.
This development has reignited broader debates about the preservation of India’s historical sites and the legal challenges posed by conflicting historical narratives. It also underscores the need for careful navigation of communal sensitivities while addressing claims involving heritage structures.
The ASI, a central body responsible for archaeological research and the conservation of historical monuments, has previously undertaken similar surveys. Its plea to oversee the management of the Sambhal mosque could set a precedent for other contested heritage sites. The final outcome of the legal proceedings will likely influence how disputes over historical claims are approached in the future.
This unfolding case continues to draw significant attention from legal experts, historians, and the public, reflecting the complex intersection of history, law, and cultural identity.