The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) informed the Delhi High Court that declaring Jama Masjid a “protected monument” would have significant implications. Currently, the mosque is not under ASI’s jurisdiction but rather the Delhi Waqf Board’s, raising ongoing questions about its status and management. A bench led by Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma directed the ASI to submit any available architectural plans or sketches of the mosque, along with details of its current usage. Furthermore, the court requested information on the management and use of revenue and donations collected by Jama Masjid, with a status report to be submitted within four weeks.
Additionally, the bench requested that the Delhi Waqf Board inform the court of any changes in the managing committee of Jama Masjid. The board was instructed to present proposals aimed at the preservation and protection of the mosque and its surroundings. The court scheduled the next hearing for December 11, with the expectation that the Delhi government will also provide a status report within the same timeframe.
The matter traces back to public interest litigations (PILs) filed by Suhail Ahmed Khan and Ajay Gautam in 2014, which questioned the appointment of the Shahi Imam and his son as Naib Imam (deputy imam) of Jama Masjid. The petitions raised concerns over why Jama Masjid remains under the Delhi Waqf Board instead of the ASI’s jurisdiction and called for the removal of encroachments around the historic site. They also questioned the lack of ASI oversight, suggesting that such a designation could enhance protection for the monument.
An ASI affidavit presented by central government counsel Manish Mohan revealed that over ₹60 lakh has been spent on conservation efforts at Jama Masjid since 2007, even though it is not designated as a “protected monument.” The ASI stated that, due to this status, it does not have access to details regarding the mosque’s revenue generation or its utilisation. ASI included documentation of its communication with the Shahi Imam and the Government of India, including a letter from former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, indicating that a decision had previously been made against designating Jama Masjid as a protected site.
ASI’s affidavit explained that construction in the area surrounding Jama Masjid is subject to regulation, particularly within the 200-meter zone beyond the prohibited area, where prior permission from the National Monuments Authority is required. The absence of the “protected monument” status, however, has limited ASI’s control over construction and management activities around the mosque.
The broader issue of Waqf Board claims on historical sites was also highlighted in the court proceedings. Recently, the Karnataka Waqf Board claimed ownership of 53 monuments, including Gol Gumbaz and Bara Kaman, that are currently under ASI jurisdiction in the state. Encroachment and claims on public or heritage sites by the Waqf have stirred debate, with critics alleging that such actions are widespread across the country.
As the Delhi High Court awaits further input from both the ASI and the Delhi government by December 11, the discussion surrounding Jama Masjid’s legal status continues. The case could potentially impact not only the administration of Jama Masjid but also the broader policy on Waqf claims to historical sites across India.
