Today(30th Aug),The Supreme Court upheld its earlier order requiring the Jalgaon Municipal Council to keep the gates of the Jalgaon Jumma Masjid open for namaz throughout the day. This decision came after the mosque sought to modify the April 19, 2024, order that controversially referred to the site as a “temple.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(30th Aug), the Supreme Court upheld its previous order mandating that the Jalgaon Municipal Council maintain control of the keys to both the front and back gates of the Jalgaon Jumma Masjid, ensuring the gates remain open throughout the day to allow worshippers to offer namaz. This decision came after the original petitioner, Jalgaon Jumma Masjid, filed an application seeking to modify the order issued by the Court on April 19, 2024, which controversially referred to the disputed site as a “temple.”
The application requested the removal of the term “temple” from the Court’s observations, but the Bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, refused to modify the order.
The Bench stated-
“The learned Senior Counsel requests and is granted permission to withdraw the miscellaneous application, with the right to file a review petition.”
Senior Advocate Devadutt Kamat, representing the applicant, had earlier submitted-
“This is a prayer for modification.”
Justice Surya Kant, addressing the issue, remarked-
“This is a consent order issued in the presence of the parties. Please refer to paragraph 5.”
To which Kamat responded-
“Please refer to paragraph 4, where an issue was noted regarding the mention of a temple. Since this order, new incidents have arisen. Your Lordships have stated that it is a temple.”
Justice Kant further elaborated-
“Please specify the incidents in question. Refer to paragraph 5. I recall this as I dictated it in open court after your counsels agreed. We are discussing temples or other temples; this term has been used three times in the order, in the presence of your counsel.”
Kamat, attempting to clarify, said,
“From the outset, there is no evidence to determine whether it is a temple.”
Justice Kant responded sharply-
“You should have brought this to our attention. The High Court order included it, and it was present in our order as well. The Counsel should have mentioned it.”
Kamat conceded-
“It was a mistake on our part; otherwise, there is no evidence on record. Your Lordships’ observation is final.”
Following this exchange, the Counsel sought permission to withdraw the application with the intent to file a review petition at a later date. The original dispute traces back to a Special Leave Petition filed against the Bombay High Court’s judgment, where the Apex Court issued several directives concerning the management of the Jalgaon Jumma Masjid.
The Supreme Court had earlier directed that:
- “The key of the main entrance gate of the entire compound shall remain with the Municipal Council.”
- “There shall be status quo with regard to the Masjid compound, and the same shall be under the management and control of the Wakfs Board or the appellant-Committee with the consent of the Wakfs Board till further orders.”
- “The ingress and egress to other temples or monuments in the main compound shall be free from all types of hindrances, and the people of other religions and/or public at large shall be allowed to visit the other ancient monuments/temples without any disturbance.”
- “The key of the rear side gate shall also remain with the Municipal Council; however, it shall be the duty and responsibility of the Municipal Council to depute an official to open that gate well before the time for Namaz starts in the morning and till all the Namaz are performed throughout the day.”
- “The keys shall be handed over to the Chief Executive Officer/Executive Officer of the Municipal Council during the course of the day.”
- “However, no encroachment of any type shall be made by any of the parties.”
The controversy over the Jalgaon Jumma Masjid began when the Pandavwada Sangharsh Samiti (PSS) filed a complaint asserting that the mosque was originally a temple. They accused the Muslim community of encroachment, which led the District Magistrate to restrict entry into the disputed mosque. This order was challenged in the Bombay High Court, which, in July 2023, granted a stay on the execution of the District Magistrate’s order. The High Court also directed the District Magistrate to hand over the key of the Jumma Masjid to the President of the Jumma Masjid Trust Committee.
