New Delhi

The Allahabad High Court on March 4 heard a plea filed by the management committee of Sambhal’s Shahi Jama Masjid, seeking approval for the whitewashing of the mosque. The court officially recorded the committee’s objections to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report dated February 28 and granted the ASI time until March 10 to respond.

A key development in the case was Hindu respondent No. 1, Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, challenging the validity of a 1927 agreement between the mosque committee and the Government of India regarding the monument’s upkeep. The committee, as reported by Live Law, has cited this agreement to assert its right to whitewash the mosque, contending that the ASI holds no authority over the matter.

Before a bench led by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, Advocate Jain argued that the agreement lost its legal standing following the implementation of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. He maintained that any prior agreements under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, ceased to have effect after the 1958 Act came into force.

Advocate Jain, who is also the plaintiff in an ongoing suit in Sambhal, claimed the mosque was constructed in 1526 after demolishing a Hindu temple. He further asserted that, per the 1927 agreement, only the ASI has the authority to conduct repairs and whitewashing, not the Masjid Committee. In addition, his affidavit alleges that the Masjid Committee has, without ASI authorisation, significantly altered the structure and painted its walls and pillars to obscure Hindu symbols.

A debate, according to the report, also arose in court regarding the mosque’s original name. The 1927 agreement refers to it as ‘Juma’ Masjid; whereas, the respondent calls it ‘Jami’ Masjid, and the committee insists it is ‘Jama’ Masjid. Senior Counsel SFA Naqvi, representing the mosque committee alongside Advocate Zaheer Ashgar, clarified that the term ‘Jami’ was used in the committee’s revision plea only because the plaintiffs in the Sambhal trial court had referred to it that way.

On the issue of the 1927 agreement, Naqvi argued that the respondents aimed to bypass the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits altering the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. He contended that the respondents sought to claim the agreement referred to a different mosque to sidestep the Act’s restrictions on the Sambhal Jama Mosque.

During the proceedings, the Advocate General for the State assured the court that the Uttar Pradesh government was maintaining law and order. Meanwhile, Advocate Manoj Kumar Singh, representing the ASI, confirmed that the cleaning of the mosque, as per the court’s directive, was in progress. This follows the court’s February 28 order instructing the ASI to remove dust and vegetation from the premises.

ALSO READ: Fault Lines in the Faith: How 1979 reshaped the Islamic world

In a significant moment, as the court dictated its order, Advocate Jain requested that the mosque be referred to as a “disputed structure.” The court accepted his request and instructed its stenographer to use this term.

The next hearing is set for March 10, when the ASI is expected to address the Masjid Committee’s objections regarding its report, which concluded that whitewashing the mosque was unnecessary.