Motivated litigation aimed at altering the status of a place of worship, a questionable ex parte court order, and the violent protest that it evoked, led to the killing of four persons in Sambhal district, Uttar Pradesh, recently. The Supreme Court of India’s order calling for preserving peace and harmony has provided some respite from the tension. The Court has also asked the trial judge not to proceed with a suit filed by Hindutva proponents until the Allahabad High Court hears the mosque committee on the validity of the survey order. It has also directed that the report, if any, prepared by an Advocate-Commissioner appointed by the civil court to survey the Shahi Jama Masjid at Chandausi be kept sealed. The incident is part of a baleful pattern of action by aggressive Hindutva proponents who claim that many mosques were built after destroying Hindu temples and seek to use the judicial process to alter the religious character of the structures. The lower court’s order was passed on the same day it was taken up and without hearing the mosque’s management committee. Local residents interpreted the survey as an attempt to convert the 16th century mosque, built during Babar’s reign, into a temple. Police say the four dead were shot by firearms used by the protesters; residents say it was police firing.

The civil court order came on an application in a suit filed by eight parties. The violence took place during a second survey of the mosque. It is unfortunate that precedents arising from similar claims against mosques in Varanasi and Mathura have rendered it normal for courts to pass perfunctory orders in favour of surveying disputed property even before establishing whether such suits were permissible in law. In the process, courts have been routinely allowing the wilful violation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which freezes the status of places of worship as on August 15, 1947, and bars suits aimed at changing their status. Former Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud’s observation that the Act does not bar ascertaining the religious character of a place of worship on that day may have emboldened many an ill-motivated claimant. Independent of this Act, this masjid is a place of worship protected by the Archaeological Survey of India, and there is a prohibition against it being put to any use inconsistent with its character. The lesson is not merely that courts should be wary of entertaining revanchist suits. There should also be sufficient recognition that such developments stoke communal tension, and have undesirable consequences for peace and harmony.