Bengaluru: The Central government has approached the Karnataka High Court with a plea to vacate a madrasa operating within the Srirangapatna Jama Masjid, a historic site, arguing that its presence contravenes regulations around protected monuments.
This contentious case, involving claims of heritage preservation versus religious rights, has put the spotlight on the Jama Masjid in Srirangapatna, a site deeply woven into Karnataka’s historical and cultural tapestry.
The petition, filed by a resident named Abhishek Gowda from Kabbalu village in Kanakapura taluk, alleges that the madrasa’s activities within the mosque compound are “unauthorised.”
According to the petition, the presence of a madrasa in a protected monument is contrary to legal provisions, and Gowda has requested that the government enforce restrictions to safeguard the site.
The case was presented before a division bench led by Chief Justice N V Anjaria. Representing the Centre, Additional Solicitor General of India for the Karnataka High Court, K Arvind Kamath, argued that the historic Jama Masjid was officially designated as a protected monument in 1951.
Under the provisions of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and related statutes, no unauthorised activities should be permitted within protected structures, Kamath contended.
The Jama Masjid in Srirangapatna holds significant historical value, dating back centuries and associated with rulers such as Tipu Sultan, who commissioned it.
This backdrop has made the mosque an emblematic monument, drawing tourists, historians, and devotees alike. However, with the label of a “protected monument” comes regulatory oversight that limits certain activities within its premises.
Kamath emphasized that while there have been concerns about law-and-order disruptions due to any interference with religious activities, the Centre’s view is that enforcing regulations around protected sites should take precedence. He argued that overlooking these “unauthorised” operations could set a precedent for other heritage sites, potentially compromising their preservation.
In contrast, the Karnataka State Waqf Board, represented by legal counsel, argued that the board has held ownership of the mosque since 1963, a status that permits them to conduct religious and educational activities, including madrasa teachings, within the premises.
The Waqf Board insists that their rights over the property are well-established, and they view the madrasa as a legitimate part of the mosque’s operations, serving the religious and educational needs of the local Muslim community.
The state government’s representatives joined the Waqf Board in defending the madrasa’s presence, aligning with the board's claims of ownership and lawful operation. They emphasised that the madrasa’s role is integral to the community and that its removal would be seen as infringing on religious freedoms and the board’s jurisdiction.
After hearing both arguments, the bench decided to adjourn the case for further arguments, scheduling the next hearing for November 20. This pause allows both parties to strengthen their arguments and perhaps consider the implications of a decision that touches on the intersection of heritage protection, religious freedoms, and legal rights over historically significant sites.
The case’s outcome could establish a critical precedent not only for the Jama Masjid but also for the legal landscape concerning the regulation of religious activities in India’s protected historical monuments.
For now, the spotlight remains on the Karnataka High Court’s upcoming hearing, where it will decide whether the preservation of a historic site takes priority over established religious activities within its bounds.
