A court in Uttar Pradesh’s Jaunpur district on Monday refused to order a survey of a 14th-century mosque, citing the Supreme Court’s interim directive that barred courts from passing orders in pending cases about the religious character of places of worship, Live Law reported.

A Hindu organisation called the Swaraj Vahini Association has filed a lawsuit before the court claiming that the Atala Mosque in Jaunpur was originally a temple. The suit claimed that the temple was demolished after 14th-century ruler Firuz Shah Tughlaq invaded India.

The Swaraj Vahini Association demanded that Hindus be given the right to worship at the site, and that non-Hindus be barred from entering the premises.

The Jaunpur court, however, declined to pass any orders with respect to the plea, referring to a Supreme Court order from December 12 in response to a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 1991 Places of Worship Special Provisions Act.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on December 12 directed courts not to pass any interim or final orders, including survey directions, in pending lawsuits concerning the religious character of places of worship.

In view of the directive, the Jaunpur court on Monday scheduled the case about the Atala Mosque for further hearing on March 2 next year – 12 days after the Supreme Court is set to hear the petitions again.

The Places of Worship Act does not allow any changes to the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.

There are presently at least 18 suits pending in courts across the country concerning 10 mosques and shrines, including the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, the Shahi Eidgah mosque in Mathura and the Ajmer Sharif dargah in Rajasthan. Hindu litigants in these cases have claimed that these structures were built after demolishing ancient Hindu temples.

VCK chief files plea in support of 1991 Act

Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi chief and Chidambaram MP Thol Thirumavalavan has filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court in support of the Places of Worship Act.

He contended that “inaccurate and biased sources” could not be used to determine whether places of worship were destroyed by “invaders” in medieval times. The Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi chief also contended that narratives about the identities of “invaders” have also changed from time to time.

“Even if we assume that certain mosques have been constructed after demolishing Hindu temples by invaders, then such claims have no end, as many Hindu temples have been erected on the ruins of Buddhist stupas,” Thirumavalavan’s intervention application contended.

The Chidambaram MP argued that in this backdrop, it would be unwise to lift the bar on hearing such petitions under the Places of Worship Act.

Also read:

Harsh Mander: Temples, mosques, courts and the judgements of history