19 hours Ago By OpIndia Staff
The affidavit says that ASI officers were not allowed to enter the mosque for inspection and that the Jama Masjid management committee has done several interventions and modifications inside the mosque. In a major development in the Sambhal Jama Masjid-Harihar Temple dispute , an affidavit filed by Superintending Archaeologist in the Meerut circle of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) Vinod Singh Rawat has revealed that there is a pattern to keep facts concealed in the disputed Sambhal Jama Masjid. The affidavit says that ASI officers were not allowed to enter the mosque for inspection and that the Jama Masjid management committee has done several interventions and modifications inside the mosque.
It further states that an ASI team had inspected the disputed mosque once in 1998 and then in June 2024. “In response to para 4 and 5 of the petition it is submitted that the situation is also very tough for ASI. Even officers of the ASI were not allowed to enter the monument for the purpose of inspection.
However, ASI with the support from District Administration took up inspection of the monument time to time. A team of ASI had inspected the monument in the year 1998. Most recent inspection of the monument by ASI team was done on 25th June, 2024.
A copy of the inspection note is also attached herewith as Annexure-I,” the affidavit accessed and shared on X by journalist Rahul Shivshankar reads. BIG EXCLUSIVE BREAKING: There is a pattern to the attempts at keeping things under wraps at the Jama Masjid in Sambhal. Here is a sworn Affidavit of Mr Rawat the superintending Archaelogist in the Meerut Circle of the ASI.
This clearly says that even in the past it was very...
pic.twitter.com/RW73SsgNDX The Superintending Archaeologist of ASI’s Meerut circle submitted that the Sambhal Jama Masjid management committee has carried out various interventions and modifications in the disputed mosque.
Moreover, Rawat said that the masjid management committee has restricted the ASI team from carrying out inspection and thus, the ASI is unaware of the present status of the mosque, in addition, the ASI also does not have any information on whether any additions were made to the mosque. “In response to para 32 and 33 it is submitted that the Masjid Management Committee involved in the monument has carried out various interventions, additions, modifications etc. at the monument.
The inspection undertaken by ASI officers in the month of June, 2024 records some of the interventions done at the monument. A copy of said inspection note may please be seen at Annexure-I. However, there are restrictions on ASI team for inspection, the current status and additions carried out are not known to ASI,” the affidavit reads.
This information is crucial in the case, given the fact that on the 22nd of December 1920, the disputed site was declared a protected monument via a notification issued by the Secretary to the Government of United Provinces under Section 3(3) of the Act. The petitioners in the Sambhal Jama Masjid case have argued that the ASI failed to control the management of the disputed site, despite it being a protected monument. The petitioners argued that it placed the site under the supervision and control of the ASI.
Thus, ASI should be the legal custodian responsible for the upkeep, management, and facilitation of public access. The revelations made in the affidavit raise the question as to how is it legal that an ASI-protected monument is being administered by the Jama Masjid committee and how could they prevent the ASI team from conducting inspection at a monument meant to be protected by the ASI. Most importantly, what exactly has the Sambhal Jama Masjid committee been hiding for so long from the public and why.
.
