SC Refused To Hear Plea Seeking Permission To Perform Namaz In Qutub Minar Mosque

The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a petition seeking permission to perform namaz in a mosque located within the Qutub Minar complex but outside the Qutub enclave. However, because the matter is already pending before the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court asked that the case be heard as soon as possible.

“We see no reason to intervene in the matter that is already pending before the High Court. The SLP is rejected. However, given the circumstances of the case, we request that the High Court rule on the facts of the case in accordance with the law as soon as possible,” the court stated.

The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Managing Committee of the Delhi Waqf Board informed the Bench comprised of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice CT Ravikumar that the Central Government officials had ‘illegally and abruptly’ stopped the performance of namaz at a mosque located outside the Qutub enclave.

“Has it been halted by an order?” Justice Murari inquired.

“No notice, no order, absolutely illegal and by force,” the Counsel replied.

He informed the Bench that a writ petition in this respect had been filed before the Delhi High Court almost a year ago, but that the matter had not been effectively progressed since. He claimed that the most recent application filed in the case was in light of Ramzan and had not been considered by the High Court.

The High Court noted in an order dated 07.03.2023, that another application seeking similar relief had been submitted and was pending before it. In light of this, it ordered that the most recent application be listed alongside the one that was pending on August 21, 2023. The Counsel contended that hearing the application in August would make it ineffective.

He requested the Bench to enable namaz to be performed at the aforementioned mosque. The Bench instructed the petitioner to approach the High Court where the case was already pending, indicating that the Court could not accept the petitioner’s arguments ex-parte.

The petitioner claims that the mosque’s name is ‘Mughal Mosque,’ and that it is a properly Gazette Notified Waqf property. There is a properly appointed Imam and Moazin, according to a notification dated 16.04.1970. It is a part of the Qutub Complex. However, it is not the renowned ‘Masjid Quwwatul Islam’ and is located outside the Qutub enclosure.

The petition filed in the Delhi High Court challenges the authorities’ actions in limiting the number of worshippers to five on May 6 and then completely stopping the performance of Namaz at the mosque in question on May 13, both without notice or order.

The Centre had claimed before the court that the mosque in issue is a protected monument and that a Saket Court is hearing a case involving the same mosque. The Board responded to the Centre’s submission by stating that the Saket Court is dealing with a separate mosque. The High Court was also informed that the mosque in issue did not appear on the list of protected monuments notification.

According to the Board, even if the Mosque in question is a protected monument, it is the respondents’ bounden obligation to maintain it under Section 16 of the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, as 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 a muscular approach that is antithetical to liberal values enshrined in the Constitution and liberalism reflected in every aspect of common people’s life,” the petition stated.

“As a result, 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 such inaction curtails, smothers, and cripples his rights as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” it added.