By Anwarulhaq Baig
NEW DELHI—Delhis High Court has denied permission for Shab-e-Barat prayers and graveyard visits at the demolished 800-year-old Akhondji mosque site in Mehrauli, a monument protected by the Archaeological Survey of India.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while dismissing the application, emphasized that the court is already seized with the main writ petition and that the status quo order is being maintained on the site.
The court refused to pass any directions at this stage, noting that the site is currently in the possession of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the scheduled hearing of the main writ petition on March 7, 2024.
The Managing Committee of Delhi Waqf Board through Advocate Shams Khwaja filed the urgent application, asserting that locals have celebrated Shab-e-Barat at the mosque for generations and the graveyard was active. Advocate Khwaja requested permissions and arrangements to facilitate visitation and prayer at the Akhondji mosque site and adjoining graveyard from Sunday evening through Monday morning due to Shab-e-Barat.
Advocate Khwaja argued that the urgency of the application was due to Shab-e-Barat, in which Muslims offer prayers throughout the night and visit graveyards. He highlighted the historical significance of the 800-year-old mosque and the active graveyard that was too illegally demolished on January 30 this year by DDA.
The DDA, during the hearing, contended that the counter affidavit in the main writ petition has not been filed, and without complete pleadings, the application should not be considered. “No case has been made out by the petitioner,” the DDA counsel claimed.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi Waqf Board, different from the Managing Committee of Waqf Board, opposed this plea and even surprisingly challenged the locus standi of the petitioner, stating that Waqf Board has no authority over the land.
On this, Justice Kaurav concludes, “admittedly, as of now, the site in question is in the possession of the respondent-DDA and this court is seized with the main writ petition which is slated to be heard on March 7, 2024. At this stage, under the facts of the present case, this court is not inclined to pass any direction. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed.”
In a related development, the High Court has also dismissed an application of Advocate Khwaja on behalf of Managing Committee of Delhi Waqf Board requesting the appointment of a local commissioner to inspect the demolished site. Justice Kaurav stated that after reviewing the DDA’s status report, the court saw no need to appoint a commissioner at this stage.
While speaking to media, advocate Shams Khwaja expressed disappointment over the Delhi High Court’s rejection of his plea. “I told the court while hearing my application that I was seeking temporary permission for allowing worshippers to go to the Masjid site and graveyard on Shab-e-Barat night, which is analogous to the Hindu tradition of Shraddha where people pay respect to their departed elders,” Khwaja said. He clarified that he was not seeking to create any permanent rights through his plea. “It was only a temporary relief,” he emphasized.
However, Khwaja said the High Court was not inclined to grant him the relief he sought. “In fact, it wanted me to cut short my submissions and suggested I had come too late, when I had already informed the court 7-9 days in advance,” he added.
Expressing disappointment over the decision, Khwaja told the court that every Hindu sentiment in India is being respected and accommodated by constitutional courts. “I don’t see why a perfectly lawful Muslim sentiment, backed by 800 years of legal history, should not be accommodated similarly,” he remarked.
Various individuals familiar with the Delhi’s Waqf matters have raised strong objections over continued delay in reconstituting the Delhi Waqf Board, six months after its term ended and appointment of an Administrator by Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena. They express concern over the “pathetic situation” of Waqf property administration and question the suitability of the appointed Administrator, Ashwani Kumar, Principal Secretary of the Home Department.
Lieutenant Governor had appointed Kumar in January as the interim administrator until the Board’s reconstitution. However, this move has sparked criticism. Critics assert that appointing a government official undermines the Board’s autonomy and raises doubts about their ability to handle legal cases effectively.
Further concerns surfaced during a recent court hearing regarding the Akhondji property, claimed to be a Waqf property. Instead of defending the Board’s assertion, the legal counsel appeared on behalf of the Board surprisingly challenged the petitioner’s locus standi, implying the Board has no authority over the land. This action has raised questions about the legal representation entrusted with protecting Waqf interests. With crucial matters like property disputes and religious site protection facing delays due to the absence of a full Board, they urge the government to expedite the reconstitution process and address concerns over the current administration. Additionally, they demand transparency and clarity regarding the legal representation handling Waqf-related cases.
In its earlier hearing, DDA had challenged the legal standing of the Delhi Waqf Board in this case, arguing that the Managing Committee of Delhi Waqf Board lacks the authority to file the petition. DDA’s lawyer, Sanjay Katyal, pointed to a January 10 order by Government of NCT of Delhi headed by L-G, appointing Ashwani Kumar, Principal Secretary of the Home Department, as Administrator of the Delhi Waqf Board until it’s reconstituted. He claimed this order nullifies the Board’s legal right to pursue the petition. Katyal also cited recommendations made by a Religious Committee meeting on January 4, 2024, as justification for the DDA’s actions against the mosque, madrasa and graveyard.
Countering DDA’s claims, the Delhi Waqf Board’s counsel asserted that their CEO, Dr. Mohd. Rehan Raza, did attend the January 4 meeting but registered written objections to the Religious Committee’s proposed recommendations and intended actions.
Ordering the status quo to be maintained for the 7 bighas and 13 biswas of land where mosque, Madrasa and graveyard once stood, until next hearing, the High Court had underlined the need to hear both sides before determining the legality of the Religious Committee’s recommendations and the DDA’s actions regarding the disputed land.
The mosque, along with Madrasa Bahrul Uloom and various graves, was demolished by the DDA on January 30, leading to a legal battle between the Delhi Waqf Board and the DDA, sparking a controversy.
The demolition of the Akhondji mosque and adjoining structures was done by DDA on January 30. The mosque managing committee claims the mosque was a 800-year-old monument, while the DDA maintains it was an illegal encroachment. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) lists the mosque as a protected monument in its document published in 1920.
