The Jama Masjid is presently below the safety and guardianship of the Delhi Waqf Board. (File)
New Delhi:
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on Wednesday informed the Delhi Excessive Courtroom that declaring the historic Jama Masjid a “protected monument” would have a “substantial Affect” and no steps have been taken on this regard thus far.
In an affidavit filed in response to PILs on the problem, the ASI stated as soon as a monument is said a protected monument, sure laws and prohibitions within the space round it come into power.
It additional stated that though the Mughal-era Jama Masjid is presently below the safety and guardianship of the Delhi Waqf Board, the ASI has been enterprise conservation and preservation work there.
A bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh orally stated 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 must be taken for the safety of the historic construction.
“They (ASI) are saying there’s a hesitation. There may be an influence of declaring it a protected monument,” the court docket noticed whereas coping with PILs looking for instructions to authorities to declare the Jama Masjid a protected monument and take away all encroachments in and round it.
The bench, additionally comprising Justice Amit Sharma, nonetheless added that it could look into the problem of streamlining the administration of the mosque and requested the Delhi Waqf Board to tell it concerning the standing of the 9-member managing committee that was earlier appointed for the Jama Masjid.
“One factor is obvious, even when it’s not handled as a protected monument, its income can’t completely go to any non-public particular person,” the court docket stated, whereas suggesting that some reimbursement might be given to ASI for the preservation work undertaken by it.
The ASI, represented by central authorities standing counsel Manish Mohan, acknowledged in its affidavit that it has spent over 60 lakh on the conservation works carried out on the Jama Masjid since 2007.
The affidavit by ASI additional stated that because the Jama Masjid was not a “protected monument”, it had no details about the era and utilisation of its income.
“There’s a substantial influence of declaring Jama Masjid as a protected monument. The supply of prohibited space shall be relevant to the Jama Masjid, which is a 100-metre zone from a protected monument by which new development is prohibited. Additional, in regulated areas (200 metre zone past prohibited space) all construction-related actions are regulated and require prior permission from the Competent Authority and Nationwide Monuments Authority,” the doc stated.
The authorities, additionally represented by the Centre’s standing counsel Anil Soni, additionally stated the “unique file”, containing the choice of the then prime minister Manmohan Singh that the Jama Masjid shouldn’t be declared a protected monument, couldn’t be traced.
The court docket had sought manufacturing of the file earlier than it on August 28.
Throughout the listening to, senior advocate DP Singh, showing for one of many petitioners, raised considerations with respect to the utilisation of the income generated by the Jama Masjid.
He stated the Jama Masjid in Pakistan is a world heritage web site.
One other petitioner objected to the usage of the title “Shahi Imam” by the non secular head within the Jama Masjid.
The bench, nonetheless, stated it was not involved with the title however precise profit to the individuals.
“This occurs in quite a lot of temples additionally. We’re not involved with the title however the precise profit to the individuals,” it stated.
Itemizing the matter for listening to in December, the court docket stated the Centre was free to position on file its views with respect to the streamlining of the income utilisation in addition to the managing committee appointed by the Waqf board.
It additionally requested the ASI to hold out a survey of the mosque and place it a sketch together with images of its premises.
The PILs, filed by Suhail Ahmed Khan and Ajay Gautam in 2014, have objected to the usage of the title ‘Shahi Imam’ by Jama Masjid’s Imam Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari and the appointment of his son because the Naib (deputy) Imam. The pleas have additionally questioned why Jama Masjid was not below the ASI.
The ASI had in August 2015 informed the court docket that former prime minister Singh had assured the Shahi Imam that the Jama Masjid wouldn’t be declared a protected monument.
(Aside from the headline, this story has not been edited by EDNBOX workers and is revealed from a syndicated feed.)