Sambhal Mosque Row: Hindu Respondent Disputes '1927 Agreement' In Allahabad HC; Intent To Avoid Bar Of 1991 Act, Claims Mosque Committee

Notably, today, the Hindu respondent no. 1 (Advocate Hari Shankar Jain) challenged the 1927 agreement between the Masjid committee and the Government of India concerning the maintenance and upkeep of the monument/structure.

It is important to note that the committee is relying on this very agreement to argue that it has the authority to carry out the whitewashing of the mosque, and that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is not responsible for making arrangements for this task.

Advocate Jain made this objection before a bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, arguing that after the enforcement of 'The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, any agreement entered into between the Government and private party under the provisions of Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, has ceased to operate.

It may be noted that Advocate Jain is also the plaintiff in a pending suit before a Court in Sambhal, which claims that the mosque in question was built in 1526 after demolishing a temple. It was his further submission that even as per the terms of the agreement, the ASI is only empowered to carry out repairs and whitewashing, etc., if so required, and not the Mosque committee.

Jain's affidavit in the Court claims that the Masjid Committee, on its own, without seeking permission from ASI, has made substantial changes in the building and painted the walls and pillars to deface and hide the Hindu signs and symbols.

During the course of the hearing in the matter today, the Court, ASI, Respondent and the Masjid committee also discussed as to what was the original name of the Mosque.

Essentially, the 1927 agreement refers to the mosque as 'Jumma' masjid, while the respondent refers to it as 'Jami' masjid. However, the committee claims it is actually called 'Jama' masjid.

Though in its revision plea before the Court, the committee used the term 'Jami' for the mosque, Senior Counsel SFA Naqvi (for the Masjid Committee) assisted by Advocate Zaheer Ashgar, explained to the Court that it had used this term because the plaintiffs in the trial court at Sambhal had referred to it as 'Jami'.

He argued that since the plaintiffs filed a revision plea against the trial court's order, the committee felt it necessary to use 'Jami' in the plea before the HC to avoid any objections from the registry.

Furthermore, responding to the submissions regarding the dispute raised with regard to the 1927 agreement, Senior Counsel Naqvi submitted that the Respondents intent was to bypass the bar set by the Places of Worship Act 1991, which prohibits the conversion of any place of worship with respect to religious structures as they stood on August 15, 1947.

He stated that the respondents were attempting to infer that the agreement in question does not pertain to the Jama Mosque in Sambhal, but rather to a different mosque, with the intention of bypassing the restrictions imposed by the 1991 Act concerning the Sambhal Jama Mosque.