Delhi HC Asks ASI To Provide Clarity On Policy For Allowing Prayers In Protected Monuments

The Delhi High Court has requested the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to provide clarity on its policy regarding prayers by devotees in religious places situated within protected monuments.

This request was made during a hearing of a petition against the discontinuation of prayers by devotees inside the Mughal Mosque. The ASI claims that the mosque is part of the Qutub Minar complex and falls under the category of protected monuments.

The counsel representing the ASI stated that, in his understanding, there is absolutely no possibility of allowing prayers in protected monuments.

However, Justice Prateek Jalan expressed his concern over the lawyer's statement and suggested that it may have been an exaggeration. He then requested the counsel to provide a clear explanation of the ASI's position on the matter.

The court emphasized that there should be a uniform policy enforced by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) across all protected monuments in the country.

It stated that no religious worship should be allowed in any of these monuments, unless there is a legal provision supporting it. The court stressed the need for consistency and equal treatment for all religions.

The counsel representing the ASI expressed the need to seek instructions on the matter. He further clarified that in the specific case being discussed, there had been no instances of prayers being offered inside the Mughal Mosque since it was designated as a protected monument.

Last year, the managing committee of the mosque, appointed by the Delhi Waqf Board, approached the high court with a complaint against the Archaeological Survey of India.

They alleged that the officials of ASI abruptly and unlawfully prohibited the offering of namaz (Islamic prayers) in the mosque on May 13, 2022. The committee described this action as arbitrary and without legal basis.

According to Advocate M Sufian Siddiqui, counsel for the Delhi Waqf Board, regular prayers were conducted inside the mosque until last year.

However, without any prior notice, the ASI discontinued this practice. Siddiqui raised concerns over the sudden halt in prayers without proper justification.

According to Siddiqui, once a religious place is taken over by the authorities as an ancient monument, the law regarding ancient sites does not allow for the cessation of prayers in that place.

In order to ascertain the validity of the mosque being declared a protected monument in 1914, the court requested the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to present any available records related to the issuance of the notification.

The court emphasized the need to determine whether the Mughal Mosque was included in the protected area and whether the prohibition of prayers in that location is warranted.

During the hearing, the ASI counsel clarified that the Mughal Mosque and the Quwattul Islam Mosque are two separate entities. The Quwattul Islam Mosque is currently the subject of a lawsuit in a lower court in Saket.

Reportedly, a plea is currently pending before a Saket court, requesting the restoration of Hindu and Jain deities inside the Qutub Minar complex. The plea highlights that 27 temples were partially demolished by Qutubdin Aibak, a general in the army of Mohamad Gauri.

It further states that the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque was built inside the complex using the materials from the demolished temples.

The ASI counsel emphasized that any decision regarding the right to pray in the Mughal Mosque will also impact the Quwattul Islam Mosque. According to the counsel, neither community is currently allowed to worship in either of the mosques, as they are located within the same complex.

Further, the ASI has stated that the mosque in question falls within the boundaries of the Qutub Minar and is therefore considered a protected area. The ASI maintains that offering prayers in the mosque cannot be permitted.

According to the ASI, allowing prayers in the Mughal mosque could have a wider impact on other monuments as well.

It is not just about setting an example, but also considering the potential consequences for other historical sites, it has stated to the court.

The Waqf Board, however, argues that the mosque is not protected and is situated outside the fenced area. They also claim that there is substantial evidence to prove that the mosque was previously used for religious purposes, with regular prayers being held there.

The petition requests that the authorities refrain from obstructing or interfering with the performance of 'namaz' at the mosque in question.

The petition also seeks to claim that the mosque is a waqf property, officially designated as the 'Masjid adjacent to Eastern Gate of Qutab Minar, Mehrauli' in the Delhi Administration's Gazette Notification.

The next hearing for the matter is scheduled for October.