New Delhi

Advertisment

The Delhi High Court (HC) on Friday (Sept 27) expressed its displeasure over the failure of authorities to produce before it a file containing the decision of then Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh that the Jama Masjid in the national capital should not be declared a protected monument.

Advertisment

A bench of the high court headed by Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma observed that despite an earlier order, “loose sheets” and other documents were tendered to it instead of the record about the mosque’s status as a monument, its current occupants etc.

A final opportunity granted to ASI

Granting a final opportunity, the bench sought an affidavit in the matter from a competent officer of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as well as the original file on the next date of hearing in October.

Advertisment

The bench also asked the director-general of the ASI to directly supervise the matter and hold a meeting with the central government’s counsel to ensure that a comprehensive affidavit was filed.

The Delhi HC was hearing PILs (Public Interest Litigations) that sought directions to authorities to declare the Jama Masjid a protected monument and remove all encroachments in and around it.

The ASI's failure to produce the file

On August 28, the high court directed the Indian culture ministry and the ASI to positively produce before it a file containing Manmohan Singh's decision that the Jama Masjid should not be declared a protected monument.

During the hearing on Friday, the bench questioned the ASI official present in the court over his failure to comply with the order.

“Who is not giving the file? We will call the secretary. There are clear instructions,” the bench said.

“A perusal of the note sheets 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 utilised is not contained in the file,” it added.

“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 further said.

A look at the PILs

The PILs were filed by Suhail Ahmed Khan and Ajay Gautam in 2014. The pleas objected 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 pleas also questioned why the mosque was not under the ASI’s management. The central government's counsel had earlier submitted that the Jama Masjid was a live monument where people offer prayers and there are a lot of restrictions.

The ASI told the high court that Manmohan Singh in August 2015 had assured the Shahi Imam that the masjid would not be declared a protected monument. 

(With inputs from agencies)