Several politicians and religious leaders from Jammu and Kashmir have criticised a Rajasthan court issuing notice in a petition that claims the shrine of 13th-century Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti was built over a Shiva temple.
The move was “unwarranted” and could “result in further bloodshed”, they have said.
On Wednesday, a court in Rajasthan’s Ajmer issued a notice to the Muslim defendants in a civil suit filed by Hindu Sena chief Vishnu Gupta.
Gupta has sought directions that the Ajmer Sharif Dargah be declared as the Bhagwan Shri Sankatmochan Mahadev Virajman temple. He also sought the removal of the dargah committee from the premises and asked for a survey of the site by the Archaeological Survey of India.
On Thursday, Peoples Democratic Party chief Mehbooba Mufti claimed that former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud opened a “Pandora’s box” that had “paved the way for surveys of these sites potentially leading to increased tension between Hindus and Muslims”.
She was referring to an order by a bench in the Supreme Court headed by Chandrachud in August 2023 that permitted a survey to be carried out at the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi to examine whether the religious structure was built on a temple.
While hearing the matter in 2022, he also maintained that ascertaining the religious character of a place of worship was not barred under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The act mandates maintaining the religious character of places of worship as they stand.
The Supreme Court is yet to hear the challenge mounted to the Gyanvapi survey on the basis of the Act. Another Constitutional bench has also remained sitting on challenges to its constitutionality.
“Thanks to a former Chief Justice of India a Pandora’s box has been opened sparking a contentious debate about minority religious places,” Mufti said on Friday on social media. “The recent violence in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh is the direct result of this judgement.”
Mufti was referring to a court in Sambhal allowing an application on November 19 asking for Hindus to be given access to and survey the town’s Shahi Jama Masjid.
The petitioners claimed that the mosque had been built in 1526 by Mughal ruler Babar on the site of the “centuries old Shri Hari Har Temple dedicated to Lord Kalki”. Five persons were killed in violence during protests against the survey of the mosque on November 24.
“First mosques and now Muslim shrines like Ajmer Sharief are being targeted which can result in further bloodshed,” she said, further asking who would take responsibility for perpetuating such communal violence that was reminiscent of the Partition of 1947.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) MLA MY Tarigami called the decision taken by the Rajasthan court “unwarranted and without legal standing”, The Hindu reported.
“It goes against the provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991,” said the Kulgam MLA. “Asking for surveys through petitions of religious places like Dargah Ajmeer Sharif is unacceptable and should be discouraged by the government.”
On Friday, Hurriyat Conference leader and Kashmir’s chief cleric Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said that there seemed to be a “deliberate pattern where first doubts are raised, then the court orders surveys, and then majority claims have to be satisfied,” according to The Hindu.
“This is an extremely disturbing and serious issue for the Muslims of not only India and Kashmir but the subcontinent and the world over,” he said, adding that such actions backed by the judiciary and the government undermined the religious sentiments of crores of Muslims.
“If India is a secular state as per its Preamble, run by a Constitution which includes the Places of Worship Act, then why are such issues allowed to be raked up and entertained continuously?” he asked, according to the newspaper.
Anjuman-E-Sharie Shian chief Aga Syed Hassan Mosavi Al-Safavi said that such claims over religious sites undermined the law and the Constitution.
He said: “I appeal to the Chief Justice of India to take immediate suo motu action in this matter and direct lower courts to refrain from entertaining further disputes.”
Also read: ‘Ayodhya happened, now Sambhal’s turn’: How a court order sparked a deadly dispute over a mosque
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!