ASI Clarifies Stand On Jama Masjid’s Protected Status

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) informed the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that declaring the historic Jama Masjid a “protected monument” would have a “substantial impact,” and no steps have been taken in this direction so far. In an affidavit filed in response to public interest litigations (PILs) on the matter, the ASI explained that once a monument is declared protected, certain regulations and prohibitions come into effect in the surrounding area.

The ASI further clarified that, although the Mughal-era Jama Masjid is currently under the guardianship of the Delhi Waqf Board, it has been involved in the conservation and preservation of the structure. A bench led by Justice Prathiba M Singh orally noted it was not inclined to declare Jama Masjid a “protected monument” based on the ASI’s position and instructed the petitioners to file notes on the steps that should be taken to safeguard 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 hearing the PILs, which sought to have the mosque declared a protected monument and to remove encroachments around it.

Must Read: Senior officials neglect illegal construction

The bench, which also included Justice Amit Sharma, mentioned that it would examine the issue of improving the mosque’s administration and requested the Delhi Waqf Board to provide information regarding the status of the nine-member managing committee previously 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 remarked, suggesting that some form of reimbursement could be provided to the ASI for its preservation work.

Manish Mohan, central government standing counsel representing the ASI, stated in the affidavit that the ASI had spent over ₹60 lakh on conservation work at Jama Masjid since 2007. The affidavit also noted that, as the Jama Masjid is not a “protected monument,” the ASI had no information on the generation or 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 explained.

The authorities, also represented by Centre’s standing counsel Anil Soni, informed the court that the “original file,” which contained the decision by then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh not to declare Jama Masjid a protected monument, could not be located. The court had earlier requested that the file be produced on August 28.

During the proceedings, senior advocate DP Singh, representing one of the petitioners, raised concerns about the utilisation of revenue generated by Jama Masjid, noting that the Jama Masjid in Pakistan is a world heritage site.

Another petitioner objected to the use of the title “Shahi Imam” by the mosque’s religious leader. However, the court remarked, “This happens in a lot of temples also. We are not concerned with the title but the actual benefit to the people.”

Listing the case for a hearing in December, the court stated that the Centre is free to submit its views regarding the streamlining of revenue utilisation and the managing committee appointed by the Waqf Board. It also directed the ASI to conduct a survey of the mosque and submit a sketch along with photographs of the premises.

The PILs, filed by Suhail Ahmed Khan and Ajay Gautam in 2014, questioned the use of the title ‘Shahi Imam’ by Jama Masjid’s Imam Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari and the appointment of his son as Naib (deputy) Imam. The petitions also raised concerns over why the Jama Masjid was not under ASI’s protection. In August 2015, the ASI had informed the court that former Prime Minister Singh had assured the Shahi Imam that Jama Masjid would not be declared a protected monument.

Also Read: Local residents urge increased police patrolling