New Delhi: Will the caretakers of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh be allowed to do the necessary repair, painting and cleaning of the structure for the Islamic holy month of Ramzan? This question has taken a legal shape after the managing committee of the Mughal-era mosque approached the Allahabad high court with an urgent petition requesting it to allow it to carry out maintenance, cleaning, white washing and lighting work in the mosque for Ramzan, which starts from Saturday (March 1).
The Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government as well as Hindu petitioners who have filed cases seeking possession of the mosque, opposed the application, arguing that whether there would be repair work would be decided by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
Hari Shankar Jain, lawyer and main plaintiff in the civil suit in the Sambhal court seeking access to the mosque, argued that in the garb of repair and maintenance work, the caretakers of the mosque would deface the “artefacts, signs and symbols of Hindu temple.” In their suit, the Hindu activists claimed that the mosque was a centuries-old Har Hari Temple dedicated to Kalki and was being “used forcibly and unlawfully” by the Jama Masjid caretaking committee.
Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal (1789). Pencil and wash drawing, 29.7 x 48.8 cm. British Library, London. Photo: Thomas Daniell, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
On February 27, a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, hearing the mosque managing committee’s application, directed the ASI to carry out an urgent inspection of the protected site with a three-member team along with the mutawalis (caretakers) of the mosque. The ASI has been asked to submit its report by 10 am on February 28, following which the court would pass its directions.
The ASI report would need to state if there was any requirement of whitewashing and maintenance or repair work in the mosque. The ASI would also need to conduct videography for the work to be undertaken before the start of Ramzan.
Lawyers for the Shahi Jama Masjid’s managing committee produced a 1927 agreement carried out between the mutawalis of the mosque and the secretary of the State of India Council, which provided for repair work to be done by the ASI. The agreement stipulated that the mutawalis would not undertake any repairs of the mosque without the prior consent in writing of the district magistrate of Sambhal (then Moradabad collector) and that the mutawali would not destroy, remove, alter, deface or imperil the masjid, nor they can build on or near the site of the masjid without permission.
Senior counsel S.F.A Naqvi, appearing for the mosque, emphasised that once the agreement was entered into in 1927, it would prevail and was binding upon the parties in terms of Rule 3 of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959.
Naqvi informed the court that for the last many decades, the white wash and other repair work in the mosque was being done by the mosque’s managing committee itself and the ASI did not interfere in the matter. Naqvi said that an application for the grant of permission for the white wash and necessary repair work in the mosque was sent to the ASI on February 8.
Ajay Kumar Mishra, the advocate general of Uttar Pradesh, opposed the application for repair works and whitewashing, on grounds that the district magistrate of Sambhal was not approached by the mosque’s managing committee. Mishra said that the district administration was not allowed to enter the mosque. As per the 1927 agreement, it was the job of the ASI to carry out necessary repair and maintenance of the mosque with the help of the district magistrate, said Mishra.
Also read: How Nehru’s 1924 Report on Sambhal Violence Was Distorted by Adityanath
The ASI’s counsel Manoj Kumar Singh told the court that since its officers were not permitted by the managing committee of the mosque to enter the premises, he was not in a position to comment whether the structure required any whitewash or not.
Justice Agarwal said that the terms of agreement (1927) clearly provided that it was the discretion of the ASI to determine what repairs, if any, shall be carried out from time to time. However, given the urgency of the matter since Ramzan starts on March 1, the court sought a report from the ASI.
Justice Agarwal considered the “apprehension” raised by Jain, the plaintiff in the Sambhal court, that the purpose of the suit may be jeopardised in the garb of the maintenance work. On the other hand, the court said, it was also necessary that the Muslims may perform their religious activity during the month of Ramzan without any hindrance.
