The Archaeological Survey of India submitted that the original file concerning the decision of not declaring Jama Masjid a protected monument was still not traceable. The Union government on Wednesday filed an affidavit before the Delhi High Court stating that “there would be a substantial impact of declaring Jama Masjid a protected monument”. This comes nearly two decades since the Ministry of Culture under the Manmohan Singh government decided not to declare the Jama Masjid as a protected monument. In an affidavit dated October 21, the Union government – through the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) – submitted, “…there would be a substantial impact of declaring Jama Masjid a protected monument. The provision of the prohibited area will be applicable to Jama Masjid, which is a 100-m zone from a protected monument in which new construction is prohibited. Further, in a regulated area (200-m zone beyond a prohibited area) all construction-related activities are regulated and require prior permission from the competent authority and National Monuments Authority. Thus, there is (a) substantial impact of central protection on a 300-m zone around the monument.”

“Further, Jama Masjid is under the protection and guardianship of Delhi Waqf Board under the Waqf Act, 1995… In the event of declaring it as a protected monument, the regulations of prohibited and regulated areas would come (into) effect,” it added. Going through the affidavit, Justice Prathiba Singh, orally remarked: “So, in effect, the Union of India is saying it (should) not be declared as protected… there’s a hesitation, that much is clear.” She orally added, “One thing is clear… even if it is not protected, revenue cannot go exclusively to any private person.” The HC suggested that part of the revenue earned can be paid as a fee to the Delhi Waqf Board as well as to ASI, even as ASI clarified before the court that it has so far not demanded any fee from the masjid. Despite not being declared a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, the ASI continues to carry out conservation and restoration work of the monument. According to a statement of expenditure submitted by the ASI in the affidavit, it incurred an expenditure of Rs 61.82 lakh on the same from 2007-2008 to 2019-2020. The ASI, in the affidavit filed through Praveen Singh – superintending archaeologist in ASI Delhi circle – submitted that it has been taking up conservation and preservation work of Jama Masjid since 1955 “as and when requested by the authority of the representative of the Jama Masjid”. The HC has been dealing with two petitions from 2014, which raised issues regarding Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari’s announcement that he would anoint his youngest son as Naib Imam of Jama Masjid at a ceremony on November 22, 2014, after he had proclaimed himself the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid. The petitions challenged the legality of this anointment and highlighted the need for the Jama Masjid to be declared a protected monument.