Jama Masjid: The Delhi High Court has expressed displeasure over the failure of authorities to produce key documents related to a decision made by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which determined that the historic Jama Masjid in Delhi should not be declared a protected monument. During a hearing on Friday, the court, led by a bench headed by Justice Prathiba M. Singh, noted that officials failed to present the complete file, despite an earlier court order. The case revolves around Public Interest Litigations (PILs) seeking the declaration of Jama Masjid as a protected monument and the removal of encroachments around the site.
Court’s Demand for Original File
In its recent hearing, the Delhi High Court was visibly dissatisfied when authorities presented what were described as “loose sheets” and other miscellaneous documents instead of the original file that would detail the status of Jama Masjid as a monument and its current management. The court emphasized the importance of this file, which includes former Prime Minister Singh’s decision, made in 2004, to not declare the mosque a protected monument.
The court gave a final opportunity to the authorities, asking for a comprehensive affidavit to be filed by a competent official of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), along with the original file, at the next hearing scheduled in October. The ASI Director General was instructed to personally oversee the matter and hold a meeting with the central government’s legal representatives to ensure compliance.
Background of the Case
The PILs, filed in 2014 by Suhail Ahmed Khan and Ajay Gautam, raise concerns over the use of the title “Shahi Imam” by the current Jama Masjid Imam, Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari, and question the appointment of his son as the deputy Imam (Naib Imam). Additionally, the petitions call for the mosque to be declared a protected monument and placed under the management of the ASI.
The High Court previously instructed the Union Ministry of Culture and the ASI to submit the file that includes Manmohan Singh’s decision regarding Jama Masjid. However, when the required documents were not produced during Friday’s hearing, the court questioned the ASI officials for their non-compliance. The bench also warned of calling the secretary responsible if the original file is not presented.
Jama Masjid’s Status as a “Live Monument”
In a prior hearing, the court was informed that the Jama Masjid is not under the ASI’s direct management because it is a “live monument” where people continue to offer prayers. Due to these religious practices, there are restrictions on the site that differentiate it from other centrally protected monuments. The ASI, in August 2015, had confirmed in court that then Prime Minister Singh had assured the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid that the mosque would not be declared as a centrally-protected monument. This decision was reportedly communicated through a letter dated October 20, 2004, from Singh to the Shahi Imam.
According to the ASI’s affidavit, the issue of whether Jama Masjid should be classified as a centrally-protected monument was first raised in 2004. However, Singh’s assurance to the Shahi Imam ensured that this status was never applied to the mosque.
Court’s Directive for Detailed Affidavit
The High Court has now mandated that a competent officer from the ASI submit a detailed affidavit addressing all relevant aspects, including the Jama Masjid’s current status, its occupants, and the management of the mosque. The court also expects clarity on how the revenue generated by the mosque is being utilized. The ASI Director General has been ordered to appoint an official knowledgeable about the mosque’s affairs to oversee this process.
This order comes amid growing concerns about the encroachments in and around the mosque. The PILs not only question the use of the title “Shahi Imam” but also argue that the mosque should come under the control of the ASI for proper preservation and maintenance.
Significance of the Case
This case has garnered attention due to the historical and cultural significance of the Jama Masjid, one of India’s most prominent Mughal-era monuments. Built in the mid-17th century by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, the mosque is a major landmark in Old Delhi and continues to attract thousands of visitors and worshippers. However, its status as a “live monument” has posed challenges for authorities regarding its conservation and management.
The High Court’s demand for the original file related to the former Prime Minister’s decision signifies the importance of clarity on the mosque’s status. While the ASI has maintained that the Jama Masjid is not a centrally-protected monument, the ongoing legal proceedings could have wider implications for the mosque’s future management and preservation.
The Delhi High Court is pushing for a thorough investigation and resolution of the issues surrounding Jama Masjid. The next hearing in October will determine whether the ASI and central government can meet the court’s demands, providing the necessary documents and clarifying the mosque’s status. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how live religious monuments are treated in India, particularly in relation to their protection and management by government agencies like the ASI.