The demolition has raised concerns over administrative actions seemingly overriding court decisions and government institutions superseding judicial verdicts.
Mohammad Alamullah | Clarion India
NEW DELHI – The 200-year-old Mamu Bhanje shrine, located opposite Shahi Eidgah and in close proximity to the Jhandewalan temple in the national capital, was ruthlessly demolished overnight on Wednesday.
The Public Works Department (PWD), in collaboration with the police, executed the demolition operation. The razing of the historic shrine came after a vacation notice was pasted on its walls just a day before.
The swift destruction has triggered widespread concern and discontent within the Muslim community, given that the shrine was part of the 123 properties under the jurisdiction of the Waqf Board. Despite its inclusion in the board’s official records, the Delhi Waqf Board failed to safeguard this historic site, casting doubts on the competence of its custodians and officials.
The operation unfolded silently in the dead of night, as a bulldozer razed the ancient shrine under the pretext of road expansion.
The sordid saga began four months ago when a notice was issued in August, citing alleged traffic obstruction and demanding the removal of the shrine’s front portion. Despite the Waqf Board staff’s intervention and the site’s inclusion in the 123 properties, the front part of the shrine was demolished on August 19, disregarding pending petition and assurances from the board.
A shrine official lamented that the committee overseeing the site was not given sufficient time to respond to the notice. He said a petition had already been filed and was slated for hearing soon.
It may be recalled that the Delhi High Court, a few months ago, emphasised minimal government interference in the 123 properties, designating the Waqf Board as the true custodian. However, the recent demolition has raised concerns over administrative actions seemingly overriding court decisions and government institutions superseding judicial verdicts.
As the controversy unfolds, the community anxiously awaits further legal proceedings and demands answers regarding the abrupt and irreversible destruction of this significant historical landmark.
