Introduction:
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Allahabad High Court seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe, led by a retired High Court judge, into the alleged role of the Uttar Pradesh government and its administrative officials in the recent Sambhal violence. The plea also seeks a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry to uncover the causes of the violence that erupted on November 24, resulting in four deaths and substantial unrest. Filed by Varanasi-based petitioner Dr Anand Prakash Tiwari through advocates Imran Ullah and Vineet Vikram, the petition alleges administrative negligence and improper handling of the situation by the authorities, including the District Magistrate (DM) and Superintendent of Police (SP), Sambhal. The petitioner contends that the violence stemmed from a court-ordered survey of the Mughal-era Jama Masjid, with claims that it was built over a demolished temple in 1526.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner strongly criticized the actions of local administrative officers and their failure to prevent violence during the survey of the Jama Masjid. Allegations include negligence by the Commissioner of Moradabad Division, the District Magistrate of Sambhal, and other officials, including the SP and SDM of Chandausi. The petitioner argues that these authorities failed to take adequate preventive measures despite the sensitive nature of the court-mandated survey. The plea further emphasizes the need for a neutral and transparent investigation under the supervision of an SIT or a central agency like the CBI, citing a potential bias in state-led inquiries. The PIL also calls for framing clear guidelines regarding the responsibilities of district authorities during court-ordered surveys of religious sites to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Arguments of the Respondents:
The state government and local authorities are expected to counter these allegations by asserting that the violence was unforeseen and that adequate security measures were in place. They may argue that the incident escalated due to the actions of protestors who opposed the survey and clashed with security personnel. Reports indicate that vehicles were torched, and stones were pelted at police, prompting the use of tear gas and batons to disperse the mob. The state may contend that these measures were taken to control the situation and avoid further casualties or damage. Furthermore, the state government might oppose the petitioner’s demand for an SIT or CBI probe, arguing that the existing investigative framework is sufficient to address the incident.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
The Allahabad High Court, while considering the PIL, is likely to delve into whether the local authorities acted diligently and responsibly during the volatile situation. The petitioner’s plea to constitute an SIT under a retired judge may resonate with the Court if administrative lapses are apparent from preliminary reports. The Court may also examine the necessity of a CBI probe to ensure impartiality, especially given the political and communal sensitivities surrounding the incident.
The bench is expected to weigh the merits of the petitioner’s demand for guidelines on administrative conduct during court-ordered surveys. Such a directive could serve as a preventive measure against future outbreaks of violence over religious disputes. Additionally, the Court might address the broader implications of the incident, stressing the importance of maintaining communal harmony and ensuring that legal processes related to religious sites are conducted peacefully.
Given the loss of lives and property, the Court may also issue interim directions to expedite the inquiry into the incident, possibly under a specially constituted committee, while reserving its judgment on the necessity of a CBI or SIT-led investigation.