Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted the Centre and the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) time to respond to the Delhi Wakf Board's petition alleging that prayers at the Mughal-era mosque near Qutub Minar in Mehrauli have been halted.

The counsel for the Centre and ASI informed Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri that they would take instructions on the issue, and the court scheduled a further hearing for July 25.

The court also inquired whether the wakf board had made any representations to the authorities, and was informed that they had received several representations.

The wakf board's managing committee, represented by Advocate M Sufian Siddiqui, stated that the issue concerns the Mughal-era mosque located within the 'Qutub complex' but outside the 'Qutub enclosure.'

Siddiqui also claimed that it is not the contentious 'Quwattual Islam Mosque,' but rather a duly gazetted notified wakf property with a duly appointed Imam and Muezzin, and that namaz was regularly performed at the mosque and that it has never been closed for worship.

Siddiqui added that the ASI officials stopped the namaz on May 13, 2022, in an "absolutely unlawful, arbitrary, and precipitous manner," without serving any notice or order, thus violating the fundamental rights of the worshippers continuously.

The plea also sought authorities to be refrained from interfering with the performance of 'namaz' at the mosque in question.

The plea further sought that the court intervenes to ensure that there is no disruption of public order while prayers are offered every day without violating law and order. The use of the temporary mosque for worship is not causing any defacement or harm to the nation's heritage, the plea stated.

"Denying Muslims the opportunity to offer namaz in the present mosque is a form of violence and a violation of cultural liberty," the plea further added.

Furthermore, the Plea added, "ASI, concerning the mosque in question, has no legal authority to regulate, let alone stop, the gathering of worshippers at the mosque in question." As a result, the ASI's contested action lacks legal support and is legally untenable. Furthermore, the contested action is ex-facie without legal authority and illegal." 

 [Source: TOI]