File Affidavit On Jama Masjid's Status As Protected Monument: Delhi High Court To ASI
The Delhi High Court has directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to file an affidavit about the status of Jama Masjid as a protected monument, its current occupants, the maintenance activities being undertaken by ASI and the revenues generated and utilized.A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma issued this direction in relation to petitions that sought...
The Delhi High Court has directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to file an affidavit about the status of Jama Masjid as a protected monument, its current occupants, the maintenance activities being undertaken by ASI and the revenues generated and utilized.
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma issued this direction in relation to petitions that sought to declare the Jama Masjid as a 'Protected Monument' as well as a 'World Heritage Site'.
The petitions alleged the Union of India, ASI and Govt. of NCT of Delhi failed to protect, promote and develop the Jama Masjid. It also accused the Delhi Wakf Board of performing its statutory duties in relation to the Jama Masjid.
On 23 August 2017, the Court directed the ASI and Ministry of Culture, Union of India to produce the file where a decision was taken not to declare the Jama Masjid as a protected monument. On 28th August 2024, the Court reiterated its directions and directed the ASI to produce the original files relating to Jama Masjid.
However, the file on the status of Jama Masjid as a protected monument has not been produced before the Court to date.
On 27 September 2024, When an ASI official produced some note sheets and one file before the Court, it was noted that they did not contain any important details with respect to protected monument status of Jama Masjid.
The Court thus directed a competent official of ASI to produce the original file on the next date of hearing.
The petitions also raised the issue of the appointment of Maulana Sayyed Ahmed Bukhari as the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid. The petitioners claimed that he used the title of Shahi Imam, to which he is not legally entitled to.
The petitioners also challenged the legality of the anointment of Bukhari's son as Naib Imam and claimed that Bukhari had no authority to appoint his son. On November 20, 2014, the High Court observed that the anointment of Bukhari's son would not vest or create any rights in favour of any person.
Case title: Suhail Ahmed Khan vs. Union Of India & Ors (W.P.(C) 7869/2014 & CM APPL. 18462/2014 & Connected matter)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1094