The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) informed the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that designating the historic Jama Masjid as a "protected monument" would have a "substantial impact" and that no actions have been taken in this regard thus far.

In an affidavit submitted in response to PILs regarding the matter, the ASI stated that once a monument is designated as a protected monument, specific regulations and prohibitions in the surrounding area come into effect. The ASI noted that although the Mughal-era Jama Masjid is currently under the protection and guardianship of the Delhi Waqf Board, it has been actively involved in conservation and preservation efforts at the site.

A bench led by Justice Prathiba M. Singh orally stated that it was not inclined to declare the Jama Masjid a "protected monument" based on the ASI's position. The court directed the petitioners to submit their notes regarding the measures that should be taken to protect the historic structure.

"They (ASI) are saying there is a hesitation. There is an impact of declaring it a protected monument," the court observed while dealing with PILs seeking directions to authorities to declare the Jama Masjid a protected monument and remove all encroachments in and around it.

The bench, which also included Justice Amit Sharma, noted that it would examine the issue of streamlining the administration of the mosque. The court directed the Delhi Waqf Board to provide updates on the status of the 9-member managing committee that had been previously appointed for the Jama Masjid.

The court stated, "One thing is clear: even if it is not treated as a protected monument, its revenue cannot exclusively go to any private individual." The bench also suggested that some reimbursement could be provided to the ASI for the preservation work it has carried out.

In its affidavit, the ASI, represented by central government standing counsel Manish Mohan, stated that it has spent over ₹60 lakh on conservation efforts at the Jama Masjid since 2007. The affidavit also noted that since the Jama Masjid is not classified as a "protected monument," the ASI does not have information regarding the generation and utilization of its revenue.

"There is a substantial impact of declaring Jama Masjid as a protected monument. The provision of prohibited area will be applicable to the Jama Masjid, which is a 100-metre zone from a protected monument in which new construction is prohibited. Further, in regulated areas (200 metre zone beyond prohibited area) all construction-related activities are regulated and require prior permission from the Competent Authority and National Monuments Authority," the document said.

The authorities, represented by the Centre's standing counsel Anil Soni, informed the court that the "original file" containing the decision by then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh not to declare the Jama Masjid a protected monument could not be located. The court had requested the production of this file on August 28.

During the hearing, senior advocate D.P. Singh, representing one of the petitioners, expressed concerns regarding the utilization of the revenue generated by the Jama Masjid, noting that the Jama Masjid in Pakistan is recognized as a world heritage site. Another petitioner raised objections to the use of the title "Shahi Imam" by the religious head of the Jama Masjid. However, the bench clarified that it was not focused on the title but rather on ensuring actual benefits for the people.

"This happens in a lot of temples also. We are not concerned with the title but the actual benefit to the people," it said.

Listing the matter for hearing in December, the court stated that the Centre was welcome to submit its views regarding the streamlining of revenue utilization and the managing committee appointed by the Waqf Board. It also instructed the ASI to conduct a survey of the mosque and provide a sketch along with photographs of its premises.

The PILs, filed by Suhail Ahmed Khan and Ajay Gautam in 2014, object to the use of the title "Shahi Imam" by Jama Masjid's Imam Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari, as well as the appointment of his son as the Naib (deputy) Imam. The petitions further question why the Jama Masjid is not under the jurisdiction of the ASI.

In August 2015, the ASI informed the court that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had assured the Shahi Imam that the Jama Masjid would not be designated as a protected monument.