ASI Tells Court That Its Officials Were Not Allowed Entry Into Sambhal Mosque In Past, That Modifications Have Been Made To The Monument
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has filed an affidavit before the Civil Court at Sambhal stating that the management of the Shahi Jama Masjid has objected to the entry of ASI officers to inspect the mosque, making the situation "very tough" for them.
The affidavit, a copy of which is with Verdictum, was filed by Superintending Archaeologist Vinod Singh Rawat posted in the Meerut Circle of the ASI on November 28, a day before the Supreme Court heard a petition relating to the case. It submits that the current status of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal district of Uttar Pradesh, which it notes was declared as a protected monument in 1920, is not known to ASI on account of restrictions placed on its entry.
The affidavit was filed in a suit instituted by Advocate Hari Shankar Jain in the Court of Civil Judge, Sambhal, in which the Court passed an ex-parte Order on November 19 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to survey the Shahi Jama Masjid mosque, which was carried out on the same day. Earlier that day, a separate civil suit was instituted in the same Court seeking an injunction against the management of the mosque to not create any hurdle in the access to the mosque, which the plaintiff termed as a temple.
"[I]t is submitted that the situation is also very tough for ASI. Even officers of the ASI were not allowed to enter the monument for the purpose of inspection. However, ASI with the support from District Administration took up inspection of the monument (from) time to time." the affidavit states. It notes that the last inspection of the mosque was carried out on June 25, 2024 and before that in the year 1998.
The affidavit contends that objections were raised on the ASI team against "carrying out (an) inspection and visiting the monument", but the ASI "pursued the matter," carried out the inspection and also took action against "defaulters".
"[T]hough the situation at monument is not comfortable, whenever any violation is reported, ASI local office has filed complaint with the Police and show cause notices were given to the defaulter." it says.
The affidavit states that the management committee of the mosque has carried out various "interventions, additions, modifications, etc. at the monument" and the inspection undertaken in June 2024 records some of these. An annexure to the affidavit contains photos of the mosque from both the inside and the outside, including some comparison photos highlighting the changes made in and around the building over the years.
Stating that restrictions were placed on the entry of ASI's team, the affidavit states that "the current status and additions carried out are not known to ASI" and "hence, it is very difficult to ascertain violation of the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and the current status of the monument."
On the alleged alternations made to the mosque building, the ASI asserts,"[W]henever any activity of modern interventions were noticed complaints were filed with the local police. Further, show cause notices were also served to defaulters."
It says further that as per Section 18 (Right of access to protected monuments) of the 1958 Act, the mosque being a protected monument, it should be accessible to the public.
The Supreme Court on November 29 asked the management of mosque to move the Allahabad High Court to challenge the Civil Court's Order to hold a survey of the mosque, while also asking the Civil Court to not proceed with the matter till the High Court hears it. The Court directed the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner to be kept in a sealed cover and not be opened.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna told the counsel appearing for Sambhal district administration, "Please ensure peace and harmony is maintained... You have to be totally neutral and ensure that nothing goes wrong."
The Bench clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and that it would keep the present Special Leave Petition before it pending while the High Court hears the matter.
