The Supreme Court of India, on Monday 20 April 2026, heard the Special Leave Petition filed by the Committee of Management of the Shahi Jama Masjid, Sambhal, challenging the Chandausi civil court's order appointing an advocate-commissioner to survey the mosque premises. A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe took up the matter, in which the mosque committee argues that the survey order falls foul of the bar contained in Sections 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
Background
The underlying suit was filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandausi, District Sambhal, by Hindu plaintiffs claiming that the Shahi Jama Masjid was constructed over a pre-existing Hari Har temple. On the plaintiffs' application, the trial court issued an ex parte order under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 appointing a commissioner for a physical survey of the mosque.
The commissioner's visit in November 2025 triggered public disturbance in Sambhal resulting in loss of life and significant property damage. The mosque committee thereafter approached the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, arguing that the survey order is barred by the 1991 Act and by the Supreme Court's directions of 12 December 2024, which had prohibited trial courts from passing fresh orders — including survey orders — in suits involving places of worship until the Constitution Bench rules on Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India.
Key Issues Before the Bench
The matter canvasses four principal questions:
Application of Section 3 of the 1991 Act: Whether the suit itself is maintainable given the prohibition on conversion of places of worship.
Section 4 bar on alteration of religious character: Whether the survey order, by enabling evidence-gathering on a pre-existing religious structure, effectively circumvents the statutory freeze on religious character as of 15 August 1947.
Compliance with 12 December 2024 directions: Whether the Chandausi trial court's order, passed before the Supreme Court's restraint, falls within the protective umbrella of that restraint.
Ex parte process and natural justice: Whether the commissioner-survey order, passed without notice to the mosque committee, vitiates the proceedings on audi alteram partem grounds under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC.
The Bench has heard submissions and the matter continues on the Court's board.
Implications for Practitioners
The proceedings are closely watched by counsel advising parties in the parallel Gyanvapi (Varanasi), Krishna Janmabhoomi (Mathura), and Kamal Maula Masjid (Dhar) litigations, all of which raise the same structural question: whether Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act bar not merely declaratory or possessory suits but also ancillary discovery-like orders such as commissioner-surveys.
For practitioners handling interim applications in this genre of suits, the Sambhal hearing signals that the Supreme Court continues to exercise close supervisory oversight and that trial courts are expected to await the Constitution Bench's pronouncement before passing any fresh order that could alter the status quo. Counsel should, at a minimum, ensure that any application for a commissioner-survey is preceded by notice to the opposite party and a specific finding that the application does not offend the 1991 Act.
More broadly, the Bench's treatment of the ex parte survey order will signal the Supreme Court's current position on procedural discipline in religiously sensitive civil suits — a question whose answer will bear on litigation strategy across the pending batch.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 prohibit?
Section 3 of the Act prohibits conversion of any place of worship from one religious denomination to another, and Section 4(1) declares that the religious character of every place of worship shall continue as it existed on 15 August 1947. Section 4(2) directs the abatement of any suit seeking alteration of that character, with a carve-out for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site.
Can a civil court order a commissioner-survey of a religious site?
Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC allows a civil court to appoint a commissioner for local investigation where elucidation of a matter in dispute is necessary. Whether this procedural power can be exercised in relation to a place of worship without first addressing the Section 3 and 4 bar of the 1991 Act is the core question in the Sambhal case.
What did the Supreme Court direct on 12 December 2024 in the connected Constitution Bench matter?
By order dated 12 December 2024 in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, the Supreme Court restrained all trial courts from passing fresh orders — including orders for survey — in suits involving places of worship until the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act is decided. The Sambhal order's compatibility with that restraint is directly in issue.