Allahabad HC Seeks Clarity from ASI on Whitewashing of Sambhal Mosque

Prayagraj- Allahabad High Court has asked the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to give certain explanations on how whitewashing the outer walls of the Jama Masjid in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal city can lead to any prejudice. The court gave this order on Monday while hearing a pending case regarding the request of the mosque committee to allow whitewashing and illumination of the exterior of the mosque.

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, during the hearing of the case, questioned the objection raised by the ASI to the request for whitewashing, requesting the agency to explain whether such an action would harm the mosque. The committee had previously stated that it only requested permission for whitewashing and lighting the outer walls of the mosque, which the ASI had left unresponded.

The case revolves around an old agreement between the administration of the mosque and the ASI for preserving and maintaining the Jama Masjid. In 1927, the mosque committee and the administration had signed an agreement under which the mosque was transferred to the ASI to preserve it. The court has now ordered the Sambhal district magistrate to bring this original agreement to court in the next hearing, fixed for March 12.

On February 28, the ASI had presented a report indicating that the interior of the mosque had already been painted with ceramic color and hence there was no urgent requirement for whitewashing. The mosque committee, however, represented by its lawyer Naqvi, made it clear that their application was only for whitewashing the outer walls, not the interior. They also asked for permission to light the outer portion of the mosque.

The case has raised concerns about the balance between preserving cultural heritage and the rights of religious institutions to maintain their places of worship. The Jama Masjid, which is a significant religious site for the local Muslim community, has been under the ASI’s jurisdiction for nearly a century. However, the committee’s concerns about the upkeep and aesthetic appeal of the mosque’s exterior have sparked the ongoing legal battle.

Justice Agarwal, in the course of the hearing, also requested the ASI to act forthwith in clearing the dust and long grass from the mosque complex. This instruction follows in the wake of worries that the site, although in the care of the ASI, has not been well-maintained.

The petition by the mosque committee points to the challenges religious organizations have in keeping and repairing their places of worship, particularly when they fall under heritage preservation legislation. While the ASI has a mandate to protect the cultural and historical authenticity of such sites, there is always conflict between keeping original aspects intact and permitting regular maintenance for practical purposes.

The hearing will resume on March 12, when the court will most probably get additional clarification from the ASI about their objections to whitewashing the exterior of the mosque. The original 1927 agreement between the mosque committee and the ASI, which governs their relationship, is also likely to shed light on the extent of the agency’s jurisdiction over the mosque.

As the judicial process continues, the balance between religious institutions’ functional requirements and conservation of heritage will probably remain the central area of dispute in this case.