Muslim Welfare Organisation prepares writ petition in Delhi High Court, questioning prayer restrictions, lack of imams and basic facilities in centrally protected mosques
NEW DELHI — An RTI reply has brought fresh attention to the condition and management of several historic mosques in the national capital, after the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) stated that its responsibility is limited to preservation and not to religious arrangements such as prayers, imams or ablution facilities.
The information came in response to an application filed by Sheikh Sartaj Ahmed Masoodi, president of the Muslim Welfare Organisation. The reply concerns mosques protected by the central government under the ASI’s Delhi Circle.
According to the RTI response, the ASI said its “primary responsibility is to preserve and maintain historical buildings” and that it does not deal with matters related to namaz, appointment of imams, muezzins or arrangements for wudu (ablution). The department also said it does not maintain records regarding expenditure on religious activities in these mosques.
The ASI provided a list of mosques protected under its Delhi Circle, along with a separate list of those where namaz is currently being offered. However, when asked about expenses for imams, muezzins, water for ablution and other basic facilities, the department stated that it had no information in this regard.
Sheikh Sartaj Ahmed Masoodi said he was surprised by the reply. “If the ASI allows prayers in some mosques, then on what basis are prayers restricted in others?” he asked.
He referred to mosques where namaz is reportedly permitted, including the Palm Mosque, Blue Mosque and Golden Mosque. He questioned why prayers continue to face restrictions in other historic mosques such as Khair-ul-Manazil, Begumpuri Mosque and Jama Masjid Feroz Shah Kotla.
“If the department says it is not responsible for religious arrangements, then why are there different rules for different mosques?” he said. “The Constitution of India gives every citizen the right to worship. The status of a monument should not become a barrier to this right.”
The issue is not limited to prayer restrictions. Sheikh Masoodi alleged that several historic mosques in Delhi are in a poor state and lack proper cleanliness and supervision. He claimed that in some places there have been complaints of encroachment and inappropriate activities.
“Some of these mosques are in a condition that hurts the feelings of the community,” he said. “If prayers are stopped and there is no regular supervision, the sanctity of these places suffers.”
Residents living near some of the sites also expressed concern. A local social worker, who did not wish to be named, said, “These mosques are part of Delhi’s history and also part of our religious life. If they are protected monuments, they should be protected fully — not only the walls, but also their purpose.”
Legal Move Planned
Following the RTI revelations, the Muslim Welfare Organization has announced that it will file a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. The petition will seek restoration of prayers in all ancient mosques in Delhi where namaz has been stopped, and will request clear guidelines on management and maintenance.
“We will place all RTI documents before the court,” Sheikh Masoodi said. “We want clarity and fairness. Either prayers should be allowed in all historic mosques where there is no legal obstacle, or clear reasons should be given.”
He added that the campaign is not only about legal rights but also about preserving religious dignity. “These mosques have been declared ‘non-living’ monuments in some cases. But for us, they are living places of worship. History and faith cannot be separated so easily,” he said.
Appeal for Support
According to a report published in the Urdu daily Inquilab, Sheikh Masoodi has appealed to social workers, lawyers and concerned citizens to support the initiative.
“We need legal and public support,” he said. “This is about safeguarding our heritage and our right to pray.”
The RTI response has once again brought attention to the broader question of how historic religious structures are managed in the capital. While the ASI maintains that its mandate is limited to conservation, community representatives argue that preservation without provision for worship leaves these mosques in disarray.
As the matter moves towards the courts, it is likely to reopen debate on the balance between heritage protection and religious practice in India’s historic monuments.
