HC notice to Union, Karnataka govts on Madrasa operated inside ASI protected mosque

The petitioner alleged that the Madrasa inside the Juma Masjid in Srirangapatna had damaged the original structure with the constructions.

Published Jan 18, 2024 | 12:34 PMUpdated Jan 18, 2024 | 12:34 PM

Juma Masjid

The High Court of Karnataka has ordered the issuance of notices to the state and Union governments on a PIL petition alleging that a Madrasa was being illegally run on the premises of an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) protected mosque in Srirangapatna in Mandya district.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit heard the petition by Abhishek Gowda on Wednesday, 17 January, and issued notices to the respondents to file their objections and adjourned the hearing.

The petitioner alleged that the Madrasa inside the Juma Masjid in Srirangapatna had damaged the original structure with the construction of structural alterations, demolition of the compound, construction of toilets, and destruction of ancient carvings besides cooking and consumption of food daily.

Also Read: HC refuses to enhance sentence of woman who caused death of eight puppies

The petition

“All the above acts are totally illegal and a violation of Section 7, Rule 7 & 8 of the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act and Rules,” he claimed.

The petitioner further submitted that the office bearers of Bajarang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad had requested the authorities concerned to take action in this regard in 2022 and also filed a police complaint but to no avail.

In its reply to an RTI application filed by the petitioner seeking information on the Madrasa inside the mosque, the ASI said no permission was granted to run a Madrasa inside the protected site.

The petitioner has sought a court direction to the ASI to remove illegal structures in the mosque and shut the madrasa illegally operating in it.

As there was no response to his pleas to the Archeological Survey of India, the state and central governments, the petitioner moved the court.

(Disclaimer: The headline, subheads, and intro of this report along with the photos may have been reworked by South First. The rest of the content is from a syndicated feed, and has been edited for style.)

Follow us