Supreme Court Requests Delhi HC To Decide Plea To Allow Namaz In A Mosque Outside Qutub Enclave 'As Soon As Possible'

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, refused to entertain a plea seeking permission to perform namaz in a mosque, which is situated inside the Qutub Minar complex, but outside the Qutub enclave. However, considering that the issue is already before the Delhi High Court, the Apex Court requested it to consider the petition expeditiously.“We do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter which is already pending before the High Court. The SLP stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, we request the High Court to decide the same in accordance with law on its own merits as expeditiously as possible .”Advocate, Mr. M. Sufian Siddiqui, appearing on behalf of the Managing Committee of Delhi Waqf Board apprised the Bench comprising Justice Krishna Murari and Justice CT Ravikumar that the performance of namaz at a mosque situated outside the Outub enclave has been ‘illegally and abruptly’ stopped by the officials of the Union Government. Justice Murari enquired, “It has been stopped by an order?”Mr. Siddiqui responded, “No notice, no order, absolutely illegal and by force.” He informed the Bench that a writ petition had been filed before the Delhi High Court in this regard almost a year ago, but the matter has not effectively progressed since. It appears that even after being listed 8 times, notice had not been issued by the High Court in the said writ petition. He submitted that the latest application filed in the matter was in view of Ramzan, which has not been considered by the High Court. By an order dated 07.03.2023, the High Court had noted that another application seeking similar relief has been filed and is pending before it. In view of the same it directed the latest application to be listed along with the one pending on 21st August, 2023. The Counsel argued that hearing the application in August would in essence render it infructuous. Mr. Siddiqui urged the Bench to allow performance of namaz at the said mosque. Indicating that the Court cannot accept the arguments of the petitioner ex-parte, the Bench asked it to approach the High Court where the matter is already pending.Background, as per the petition: The name of the mosque is 'Mughal Mosque', which is a duly Gazette Notified Waqf property vide Notification dated 16.04.1970. It is situated within the Qutub Complex. However, it is outside the Qutub enclosure and is not the famous 'Masjid Quwwatul Islam'.The plea before the Delhi High Court challenges the action by which the authorities, "without any authority in law", limited the number of worshippers to five on May 6 and then on May 13, completely stopped the performance of Namaz at the mosque in question, that too without any notice or order. Appearing before the High Court, the Union Government had claimed that the mosque in question is a protected monument and that a Saket Court is seized of a matter concerning the same mosque. The Board countered Centre’s submission stating that the issue the Saket Court is seized of is with respect to a different mosque. The High Court was also informed that the mosque in question did not find any mention in the notification which notifies list of protected monuments. According to the Board, even if the Mosque in question is protected monument, then as per Section 16 of the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 read with the relevant Rules, it is the bounden duty of the Respondents to maintain the religious nature, the sanctity attached to the mosque and to protect the right of worshippers to assemble and offer prayers."…the denial of opportunity to Muslims to offer Namaz in the instant mosque is a manifestation of muscular approach which is antithetical to liberal values enshrined in the Constitution and liberalism reflected in every aspect of life of common people," the plea stated. It added "Ex-consequenti, the authorities cannot maintain inexplicable and unconscionable silence for the simple reason that a citizen has a right to seek redressal of his grievance in a timely manner, and by such inaction, his rights as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India get curtailed, smothered and crippled."[Case Status: The Managing Committee of Delhi Waqf Board v. Union of India And Ors. SLP(C) No. 5671/2023] Click Here To Read/Download Order

Supreme Court Requests Delhi HC To Decide Plea To Allow Namaz In A Mosque Outside Qutub Enclave 'As Soon As Possible'

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags