[Qutub Minar Complex] "Is there a fundamental right to worship?" Delhi Court reserves verdict

A Delhi Court on Tuesday reserved the plea challenging the decision of a civil court dismissing a suit seeking restoration of Hindu and Jain temples at the Qutub Minar complex in the capital. .Additional District Judge Nikhil Chopra heard submissions made by the appellants and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).The Court granted time to the parties to file short synopses of their arguments and posted the pronouncement of the order for June 9. During the hearing the Court said that the existence of idols inside the complex was not in dispute. The issue was whether the plaintiffs have a right to worship, the Court remarked. "Existence of idol, directions are already there not to remove. Question is right to worship. What is the backing of this right? Idol exists there or not is not the case. We have a very limited question whether there's any denial of legal right to the appellant," the Court remarked. Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, appearing for the plaintiffs referred to article 25 of the Constitution. "There's denial of fundamental right (Reads Article 25). Fundamental right is never lost," Jain submitted. "You mean that this is your fundamental right," the Court queried. "Yes," replied Jain..The plea challenged an order of the civil judge that had dismissed the suit filed over the property in question, Quwwat-Ul-Islam, which was declared a protected monument under Section 3 of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act. The order held that past wrongs cannot be the basis for disturbing peace of our present and future. On this basis, the Court had held that ancient and historical monuments cannot be used for a purpose which runs counter to their nature as religious places of worship, but can always be used for some other purpose which is not inconsistent with their religious character. Once a monument has been declared to be a protected monument and is owned by the government, the plaintiffs cannot insist that the place of worship must actually and actively be used for religious services, the order passed in December 2021 had stated..During the hearing on Tuesday, one of the appellants Hari Shankar Jain, appearing in person, argued that the complex was built after demolishing Hindu temples and that the Quwwat-ul-Islam was built from the remains of the same."The genesis of this case from the very beginning is the admission that there were 27 Jain temples and those were demolished by Mohammedan invaders, first Qutubuddin Aibak...Why can't it (temples) be restored?" Jain argued. He referred to an iron pillar in the middle of the monument, which had Sanskrit shlokas or verses inscribed on it.When the Court enquired which right was being invoked to seek such a prayer, Jain responded that once a property belonged to a deity, it always remained deity property. "Once deity property, always deity property. It is never lost. After demolition, temple won't lose divinity, sanctity. If deity survives, right to worship survives," he submitted.The Court sought further clarity on whether the right to worship was a statutory or a constitutional right, to which Jain responded that it was his constitutional right under Article 25 of the Constitution. Jain sought for the order of the civil judge to be set aside on the ground that it had erroneously dismissed the suit without giving the applicant any rights. .The ASI, in an affidavit filed earlier, informed the Court that architectural members and images of Hindu and Jain deities were reused for the construction of the Qutub Minar complex. It also contended that the same cannot be a ground to claim the right to worship at monuments protected under the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act)..Advocate SC Gupta, representing the ASI, emphasised that there was no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. He cited an order of the Delhi High Court which observed that the character once frozen in that monument could not be changed as per the AMASR Act. "Characters of the place where allowed or not allowed for worship is governed by the day it comes under protection. It is for this reason we have monuments for places of worship and not places for worship," the ASI counsel stated. He reiterated that the fundamental right under Article 25 was not an absolute right granted by the Constitution. The counsel also shed light on the inscriptions giving character to the monument. He stated that the inscription did say that the monument used material of the 27 temples. "But nowhere it is mentioned that the materials were retrieved by demolishing temples. Also not clear if they were retrieved from the site or brought from outside. Not demolished but remains of temples used for construction," he argued. Gupta argued that courts couldn't tinker with the character of the monuments. Referring to the appellant he said, "As per his own submissions that for 800 years, it is like this. It is only recently that these things are coming up." .Towards the conclusion of the hearing, the Court asked,"Most fundamental question is of the character. Because you say the character got frozen. And they say it was a temple...It is fact against fact. Can it be decided under Order VII Rule 11 (CPC)?".[Read a live account of the hearing]