Delhi HC criticizes officials for failing to produce file signed by Manmohan Singh on Jama Masjid’s monument status
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday expressed disappointment with the officials for not submitting the file containing former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's decision that the historic Mughal-era Jama Masjid in the national capital should not be declared a protected monument, media reports said.
A bench led by Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that, despite a prior directive, only "loose sheets" and unrelated documents were presented instead of the complete record regarding the mosque's status, its current occupants, and related information, news agency PTI reported.
The court granted a final opportunity to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to submit an affidavit from a competent officer, along with the original file, at the next hearing in October.
The bench also instructed the ASI Director General to personally look into the matter and convene a meeting with central government counsel, Anil Soni and Manish Mohan, to ensure a comprehensive affidavit is filed.
The high court was hearing public interest litigations (PILs) seeking to declare the Jama Masjid a protected monument and to remove encroachments in and around it.
On August 28, the court had directed the Union Ministry of Culture and the ASI to present the file containing Singh's decision not to declare Jama Masjid a protected monument.
During Friday's proceedings, the bench questioned the ASI official present in court about the failure to comply with the order, stating, "Who is not giving the file? We will call the secretary. There are clear instructions."
“A perusal of the notesheets will show that they mostly relate to the writ petition and follow-up action in relation to the writ petition. Information relating to the Jama Masjid's status as a monument, maintenance being undertaken by the ASI, the current occupants of the Jama Masjid, and the manner in which the revenue generated is utilized is not contained in the file,” said the bench, which also included Justice Amit Sharma, according to the PTI report.
The court directed that a brief affidavit be filed by a competent ASI officer addressing all aspects of the case, and that the original file be produced at the next hearing, under the direct supervision of the ASI Director General.
It also instructed the Director General to assign a knowledgeable official familiar with the facts of the case.
The PILs, filed in 2014 by Suhail Ahmed Khan and Ajay Gautam, challenge the use of the title "Shahi Imam" by the mosque's imam, Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari, and the appointment of his son as the naib (deputy) imam.
The petitions have also raised questions about why the mosque is not managed by the ASI.
The Centre's counsel had previously argued that Jama Masjid is a functioning place of worship with many restrictions.
In August 2015, the ASI informed the court that Singh had assured the Shahi Imam that the Jama Masjid would not be declared a protected monument.
The court was also told that since the Jama Masjid is not a centrally protected monument, it does not fall under the ASI's jurisdiction.
"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, via his October 20, 2004 letter, that the Jama Masjid would not be declared as a centrally protected monument," the ASI stated in its affidavit to the court, according to the report.
Support Our Journalism
We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism
IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.
