HC expresses displeasure over non-production of file on not declaring Jama Masjid ‘protected’

New Delhi, Sep 27 (PTI) The Delhi High Court expressed its displeasure on Friday over the failure of authorities to produce before it a file containing the decision of then prime minister Manmohan Singh that the historic Mughal-era Jama Masjid in the national capital should not be declared a protected monument.

A bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that in spite of an earlier order, “loose sheets” and other documents were tendered to it instead of the record pertaining to the mosque’s status as a monument, its current occupants etc.

Granting a final opportunity, the court sought an affidavit in the matter from a competent officer of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as well as the original file on the next date of hearing in October.

It also asked the ASI director general to directly supervise the matter and hold a meeting with the central government’s counsel — lawyers Anil Soni and Manish Mohan — to ensure that a comprehensive affidavit is filed.

The high court was hearing PILs that have sought directions to authorities to declare the Jama Masjid a protected monument and remove all encroachments in and around it.

On August 28, it had directed the Union Ministry of Culture and ASI to positively produce before it a file containing Singh’s decision that the Jama Masjid should not be declared a protected monument.

During Friday’s hearing, the bench questioned the ASI official present in the court over his failure to comply with the order and said, “Who is not giving the file? We will call the secretary. There are clear instructions.”

“A perusal of the notesheets will show that they (the documents produced) mostly relate to the writ petition and follow-up action in relation to the writ petition. Information relating to the Jamia Masjid’s status as a monument, maintenance being undertaken by the ASI, the current occupants of the Jamia Masjid and the manner in which the revenue generated is utilised is not contained in the file,” the bench, also comprising Justice Amit Sharma, said.

“Let a short affidavit be filed by a competent officer of the ASI with respect to all aspects and the original file be produced on the next date of hearing. This will be undertaken directly in the supervision of the director general of the ASI,” the bench added.

The court asked the ASI director general to depute a competent official who is aware of the facts.

The public interest litigation (PIL) matters, filed by Suhail Ahmed Khan and Ajay Gautam in 2014, have objected to the use of the title “Shahi Imam” by the Jama Masjid’s imam, Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari, and the appointment of his son as the naib (deputy) imam.

The pleas have also questioned why the mosque is not under the ASI’s management.

The Centre’s counsel had earlier submitted that the Jama Masjid is a live monument where people offer prayers and there are a lot of restrictions.

The ASI had, in August 2015, told the court that Singh had assured the Shahi Imam that the Jama Masjid would not be declared a protected monument.

The court was also informed that as the Jama Masjid is not a centrally-protected monument, it does not fall within the ASI’s purview.

“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, vide his October 20, 2004 letter, that the Jama Masjid would not be declared as a centrally-protected monument,” the ASI had said in its affidavit in the court.