NEW DELHI: The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) informed the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that designating the historic Jama Masjid as a “protected monument” could result in significant consequences, and no measures have been taken so far to initiate such a declaration.
In an affidavit submitted in response to Public Interest Litigations (PILs) concerning the protection of the Mughal-era mosque, the ASI explained that once a site is declared a protected monument, regulations and prohibitions in the surrounding area come into effect.
These restrictions could alter the functioning and governance of the structure, which is currently under the guardianship of the Delhi Waqf Board.
The ASI, however, noted that despite Jama Masjid not having formal protection status, it has been actively involved in its conservation and preservation efforts.
A bench led by Justice Prathiba M Singh acknowledged the ASI’s concerns and stated the court was disinclined to push for the mosque’s formal designation as a protected monument.
The court ordered the petitioners to submit recommendations regarding alternative measures that could be taken to safeguard the mosque.
“They (ASI) are expressing hesitation. Declaring it a protected monument has broader implications,” the court observed, while noting it would examine the management of the mosque more closely.
The PILs, filed by Suhail Ahmed Khan and Ajay Gautam in 2014, called for the removal of encroachments around the mosque and questioned why Jama Masjid was not under theASI’s formal protection. The petitioners also raised concerns about the hereditary use of the title “Shahi Imam” by the mosque’s Imam and the appointment of his son as Naib Imam.
The ASI previously informed the court in 2015 that former PM Manmohan Singh had assured the Shahi Imam that Jama Masjid would not be declared a protected monument.
The matter has been scheduled for hearing in December.
Also in court
HC bins man’s plea for gender test on wife
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a writ petition filed by a man seeking a directive for the Delhi Police to conduct a gender test on his wife at a government hospital. The man alleged that his wife was a transgender person and, therefore, ineligible to file a domestic violence case against him Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the case, questioned the validity of a writ petition in such a matter, emphasizing that the issue falls squarely under matrimonial law. The petitioner had argued that his wife’s gender identity was misrepresented, claiming she had deceived him into marriage.
Notice to NIA over UAPA against Kashmiri
The HC on Wednesday issued a notice to the NIA in response to a plea by Kashmiri youth, Mateen Ahmed Bhat, challenging charges framed against him under the UAPA. Bhat, who was arrested in October 2021, has been accused of supporting terrorist organizations. In May 2023, Bhat was granted bail by a Delhi court, which found insufficient evidence to substantiate the NIA’s accusations.
Stamp Act not technical weapon for litigants: HC
The HC in its recent ruling has said that the Stamp Act is primarily intended as a fiscal tool for the state to collect revenue from certain legal documents, and it should not be misused as a technical argument by litigants to undermine their opponent’s case. Justice Manoj Jain further clarified that impounding a document would only be necessary if it was proven to be inadequately stamped.