Plea seeking restoration of 27 temples in Qutub complex
A Delhi court on Tuesday observed that the fundamental question to ask in a plea seeking restoration of 27 temples within the Quwwat Ul Islam mosque located inside the Qutub Minar complex was `what was the character of the building`.
Additional District Judge Nikhil Chopra reserved his order in a plea which challenged a lower court`s order dismissing an application filed by Hindu deity Lord Vishnu, Jain deity Tirthankar Lord Rishabh Dev and others seeking restoration of 27 Hindu and Jain temples with respective deities in the Quwwat Ul Islam mosque complex at Qutub Minar.
Writ of mandamus granted on June 9, the court noted that “the most fundamental question is of the character” since the ASI argued that the character of the mosque became frozen after it came under the protection of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR) Act of 1958, while the petitioners argued that the religious character must be considered since it is a temple.
It was decided to dismiss the application for restoration of 27 temples by a civil judge on November 29, 2021, because India had a rich history and was governed by a number of dynasties, but wrongs committed in the past “cannot be the basis for the distribution of peace today and in the future.”
Hari Shankar Jain, the petitioner, in this case, began his arguments on Tuesday by saying that the Quwwat Ul Ilam mosque was constructed after 27 temples were demolished and that for 800 years there have been no prayers offered there.
The petitioner argued that he did not want to “demolish anything” but rather restore the deities and conduct pooja, and he asked, “When there was a temple in existence long before the mosque, why shouldn’t it be restored?”.”
In response, the judge asked, “What is the legal right?”?
Let’s assume that it was attacked, destroyed, and some structures were built, and that it was not used by Muslims. What is the key question and by what criteria can you now claim recovery?
Now you want to turn this monument into a temple called a restoration. My question is, given that plaintiffs existed about 800 years ago, how do you claim that plaintiffs are making legal claims?
Citing Article 16 of the AMASR Act, Jain told the court: The law says so. Once it becomes a divinity attribute, it will always be a divinity attribute. It will survive forever. God never disappears. The divinity of God never disappears. After the temple is demolished, it does not lose its character, divinity, or holiness. ”
The court said in a bright tone: Let me survive like this. “
The court asked the petitioner, stating that “the existence of idols has not been disputed.” “Is there a right to worship an established right, whether constitutionally or not? And, if so, what remedies are there for that right?”
Jain said in court that he had a “denial of constitutional rights” and had the right to worship under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. It is believed that there are thousands of temples in India that are centuries old. Pooja can also be run here. The lower courts I learned do not control my rights.
The verdict is wrong, “Jane added. Jane argued that whether he was right could only be decided during the trial, not at the appeal stage, as the court did in court. “It’s a religious character. The former temple, the right of God, who was always a temple, is never lost.
That is the determination of the character … the mosque may exist after the temple is destroyed. Yes, that’s the most important issue, “Jane added. Subash C. Gupta, a lawyer acting on behalf of the Indian Archaeological Research Agency (ASI), dismissed the petitioner’s allegations and told the court that there was no reason to challenge the lower court’s verdict.
“The character of the place is determined on the day the monument is included in the scope of the AMASR law. Mr Gupta relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court,” Whether the character of the monument is admitted to worship. Regardless, it will be decided on the day it is decided.
He told the court that once the monument was put under protection, there was also a 60-day period in which anyone could dispute, “By itself, There are several monuments. It’s a place of worship, not our country. “
Gupta argued against Jane’s claim that he had a fundamental right, saying, “Yes, there is a fundamental right, but it is not absolute, so the court finds that the right is not available in this case. I did. “
According to Gupta, the inscription on the Quat ul Islamic mosque states, “The mosque was built using the ruins of 27 temples, but nowhere is the construction material obtained by destroying the temples. Not listed. “
In this case, ASI submitted an answer stating that the architectural statues of Hindu and Jain gods were used to build the Kutubminar complex, but the revival of worship there was unacceptable. “No basic right can be exercised in violation of any status of property” rather than “in the case of preservation practices”. “Basic rights cannot be exercised in violation of any status of the country.
The basic principles of protection/preservation are protected under the Ancient Ruins and Ruins and Ruins Act (AMASR) of 1958. The monument declared and notified is to prevent the start of new practices.
According to ASI, the resurrection of worship is not permitted at any time if it has not been carried out at the time of the preservation order. , The Qutb Minar complex has many sculptures, but “to agree with the claims of respondents or others who claim the basic right to worship a centrally protected monument is a provision of the AMASR Act. Contrary to. ” .. The proceedings have the right to “restore” Sir Vishnu, Sir Shiva, Sir Ganesh, Sir San, Goddess Gauri, Sir Hanuman, Sir Jain Tiltanker, and Sir Richab Dev in the temples of the Quattro Mosque. I tried to explain that.
“After rebuilding with the same honour and dignity,” it becomes a complex in Melauri, southwestern Delhi. It also sought to issue an injunction instructing the central government to establish a trust under the Trust Act of 1882 and take over the control and control of the Temple Complex in the Kutub Complex area of Mehrauli. trust.
“A type of decree which permanently prohibits defendants from arranging for repair work, increased construction work, or to perform Pooja, Darshan, and the worship of the gods, as specified in sections 16 and 19 of ancient monuments and archaeology. The 1958 Ruins and Ruins Act by a trust established by the central government in the area issuing the injunction, “said the lawsuit.
edited and proofread by nikita sharma
