The Delhi High Court expressed its displeasure on Friday (Sept 27) over the failure of authorities to produce before it a file containing the decision of then prime minister Manmohan Singh that the historic Mughal-era Jama Masjid in the national capital should not be declared a protected monument.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court expressed dissatisfaction on Friday over the failure of authorities to present a critical file containing the decision made by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh regarding the Mughal-era Jama Masjid in the capital. The decision in question had determined that the historic mosque would not be declared a protected monument.
A bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that, despite earlier directives, the authorities had submitted “loose sheets” and unrelated documents instead of the complete records pertaining to the mosque’s status, its current occupants, and other key details. The court firmly reiterated its stance, asking for an affidavit from a senior officer of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and demanding the original file be produced during the next hearing in October.
The court further instructed the ASI Director General to personally oversee the matter, ensuring a thorough affidavit is filed. The court also requested that a meeting be held between the ASI Director General and the central government’s counsel, Anil Soni and Manish Mohan, to ensure that all necessary documentation is gathered.
The high court is currently hearing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) that seek directives to declare the Jama Masjid a protected monument and to remove encroachments in and around the mosque.
On August 28, the court had issued a clear order to the Union Ministry of Culture and the ASI, requesting the file containing former PM Singh’s decision to refrain from declaring the Jama Masjid as a protected monument.
During the latest hearing, the bench expressed its frustration, asking the ASI official present,
“Who is not giving the file? We will call the secretary. There are clear instructions.”
The bench further noted,
“A perusal of the notesheets will show that they (the documents produced) mostly relate to the writ petition and follow-up action in relation to the writ petition. Information relating to the Jamia Masjid’s status as a monument, maintenance being undertaken by the ASI, the current occupants of the Jamia Masjid, and the manner in which the revenue generated is utilized is not contained in the file.”
The court granted a final opportunity for compliance, asking the ASI to submit a comprehensive affidavit on all aspects and to produce the original file in the next hearing.
“Let a short affidavit be filed by a competent officer of the ASI with respect to all aspects and the original file be produced on the next date of hearing. This will be undertaken directly in the supervision of the director general of the ASI,”
-the bench remarked.
The court also directed that a qualified ASI official, who is familiar with the facts of the case, should be deputed to assist with the matter.
The PILs, filed by Suhail Ahmed Khan and Ajay Gautam in 2014, raise objections to the use of the title “Shahi Imam” by the Jama Masjid’s imam, Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari, and the appointment of his son as the naib (deputy) imam. The petitions further question why the mosque is not under the management of the ASI, despite its historical significance.
The central government’s counsel had previously clarified that the Jama Masjid is considered a “live monument,” as it remains an active site for worship. As a result, there are numerous restrictions on its management and status.
The ASI, in its 2015 affidavit, informed the court that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had assured the Shahi Imam that the mosque would not be declared a protected monument.
“In 2004, the issue of notifying the Jama Masjid as a centrally-protected monument was raised. However, former prime minister Manmohan Singh assured the Shahi Imam, vide his October 20, 2004 letter, that the Jama Masjid would not be declared as a centrally-protected monument,”
-the ASI stated in its submission to the court.
Furthermore, since the mosque is not classified as a centrally-protected monument, it does not fall under the direct purview of the ASI, which complicates any administrative or protective measures that could be taken under the agency’s authority.
The case is scheduled for further hearings in October, with the high court expecting full compliance and complete documentation from the concerned authorities.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Jama Masjid
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Manmohan Singh
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
