The Jama Masjid is currently under the protection and guardianship of the Delhi Waqf Board. (File)
New Delhi:
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on Wednesday told the Delhi High Court that declaring the historic Jama Masjid a “protected monument” would have a “substantial Impact” and no steps have been taken in this regard so far.
In an affidavit filed in response to PILs on the issue, the ASI said once a monument is declared a protected monument, certain regulations and prohibitions in the area around it come into force.
It further said that although the Mughal-era Jama Masjid is currently under the protection and guardianship of the Delhi Waqf Board, the ASI has been undertaking conservation and preservation work there.
A bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh orally said it was not inclined to declare Jama Masjid a “protected monument” in view of the stand of the ASI and ordered the petitioners to file their notes with respect to the steps that should be taken for the protection of the historic structure.
“They (ASI) are saying there is a hesitation. There is an impact of declaring it a protected monument,” the court observed while dealing with PILs seeking directions to authorities to declare the Jama Masjid a protected monument and remove all encroachments in and around it.
The bench, also comprising Justice Amit Sharma, nonetheless added that it would look into the issue of streamlining the administration of the mosque and asked the Delhi Waqf Board to inform it about the status of the 9-member managing committee that was earlier appointed for the Jama Masjid.
“One thing is clear, even if it is not treated as a protected monument, its revenue cannot exclusively go to any private individual,” the court said, while suggesting that some reimbursement could be given to ASI for the preservation work undertaken by it.
The ASI, represented by central government standing counsel Manish Mohan, stated in its affidavit that it has spent over 60 lakh on the conservation works carried out at the Jama Masjid since 2007.
The affidavit by ASI further said that since the Jama Masjid was not a “protected monument”, it had no information about the generation and utilisation of its revenue.
“There is a substantial impact of declaring Jama Masjid as a protected monument. The provision of prohibited area will be applicable to the Jama Masjid, which is a 100-metre zone from a protected monument in which new construction is prohibited. Further, in regulated areas (200 metre zone beyond prohibited area) all construction-related activities are regulated and require prior permission from the Competent Authority and National Monuments Authority,” the document said.
The authorities, also represented by the Centre’s standing counsel Anil Soni, also said the “original file”, containing the decision of the then prime minister Manmohan Singh that the Jama Masjid should not be declared a protected monument, could not be traced.
The court had sought production of the file before it on August 28.
During the hearing, senior advocate DP Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners, raised concerns with respect to the utilisation of the revenue generated by the Jama Masjid.
He said the Jama Masjid in Pakistan is a world heritage site.
Another petitioner objected to the use of the title “Shahi Imam” by the religious head in the Jama Masjid.
The bench, however, said it was not concerned with the title but actual benefit to the people.
“This happens in a lot of temples also. We are not concerned with the title but the actual benefit to the people,” it said.
Listing the matter for hearing in December, the court said the Centre was free to place on record its views with respect to the streamlining of the revenue utilisation as well as the managing committee appointed by the Waqf board.
It also asked the ASI to carry out a survey of the mosque and place it a sketch along with photographs of its premises.
The PILs, filed by Suhail Ahmed Khan and Ajay Gautam in 2014, have objected to the use of the title ‘Shahi Imam’ by Jama Masjid’s Imam Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari and the appointment of his son as the Naib (deputy) Imam. The pleas have also questioned why Jama Masjid was not under the ASI.
The ASI had in August 2015 told the court that former prime minister Singh had assured the Shahi Imam that the Jama Masjid would not be declared a protected monument.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)