The Saket Court on Tuesday heard Hindus’ claims on the existence of temples inside the premises of Qutub Minar, one of the most popular historical sites in India. However, the court’s proceedings was disrupted after District Judge Nikhil Chopra reportedly found a Delhi Police personnel recording the proceedings using his mobile phone.
Journalist Nalini Sharma tweeted, “Delhi Police official found recording the proceedings ongoing before Saket Court in the suit seeking restoration of temples in the Qutub Minar complex. When asked by the judge, official says ‘only recording audio’. Judge halts the hearing & confiscates the phone.”
The lawyer representing Hindus, Hari Shankar Jain, argued in the court that he wanted restoration of deities and puja be offered inside the premises of Qutub Minar.
Delhi Police official found recording the proceedings ongoing before Saket Court in the suit seeking restoration of temples in the Qutub Minar complex. When asked by the judge, official says ‘only recording audio’. Judge halts the hearing & confiscates the phone : @AneeshaMathur
— Nalini (@nalinisharma_) May 24, 2022
The judge asked, “Now you want this monument to be turned into a temple calling it restoration, my question is how would you claim that the plaintiffs have a legal right assuming it existed about 800 years back?”
The lawyer representing Archeological Survey of India, Subhash Gupta, told the court that Qutub Minar was a protected monument since 1914 and its structure cannot be changed now. “The revival of worship cannot be allowed at a monument where such a practice was not prevalent at the time of it being granted the “protected” status,” the ASI informed the court.
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) May 24, 2022
The civil judge had earlier rejected Hindus’ claims by observing that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Places of Worship Act 1991. The judge had rejected the plea under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of Civil Procedure Code for non-disclosure of the cause of action.
The court listed the matter for 9 June but added that parties would be at liberty to file brief synopsis if any within a week, with advance copy to the opposite party.