New Delhi: The managing committee of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)-protected Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal that is the subject of an ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court has sought urgent permission from ASI to repair a damaged boundary wall and a deteriorating main gate.Sambhal mosque panel seeks ASI nod for repair works; other side opposes moveThe move has been opposed by Hindu petitioners who claim it is an attempt to destroy evidence of a temple that they believe lies beneath the structure.Committee president Zafar Ali, in his letter to the Superintending Archaeologist of ASI’s Meerut division, said that on February 11, monkeys dislodged a section of the wall near the police guard post adjacent to the main gate. The letter warned that the remaining portion could collapse at any time, endangering worshippers and police personnel posted at the site. The committee added that the main gate was also in an advanced state of deterioration, posing a daily risk to the large number of people passing through it, and sought immediate intervention to repair both.The request found no takers on the other side of the dispute. “This permission should be absolutely denied. We will make sure that it is denied. It is an attempt to cover Hindu artefacts in this temple in the name of restoration,” said Hari Shankar Jain, lawyer and lead plaintiff in the civil suit pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambhal. Jain specifically alleged that the main gate contained significant archaeological evidence that any repair work would permanently obliterate. He added that the petitioners would approach the relevant courts to block the permission.ASI counsel Vishnu Sharma, who had earlier opposed the committee’s request for whitewashing ahead of Ramadan in February, stated that the mosque’s legal status was pending before the Supreme Court. He indicated that any structural or maintenance decision would have to follow the apex court’s directions.Last year, the committee moved the Allahabad high court seeking permission for whitewashing the structure. The court granted it conditional to an ASI inspection; ASI’s report filed before the high court found the mosque structurally sound. The report also flagged that the committee had over the years replaced the original flooring entirely with tiles and coated interior surfaces with thick layers of coloured enamel paint, concealing the monument’s original fabric.Adding to the legal complexity is a 1927 agreement between the mosque’s administrators and the secretary of the State of India Council, which barred the committee from undertaking any repair or alteration without prior written consent from the district magistrate. ASI and the Uttar Pradesh government have consistently cited this agreement to block independent maintenance work by the committee.The Shahi Jama Masjid, one of three mosques built during Mughal emperor Babur’s reign between 1526 and 1530, has been a centrally protected monument under ASI since 1920 under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 (which became the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958). Interestingly, AMASR was recently in the news after the Madhya Pradesh high court said the fact that the Bhojshala in Dhar came under its purview as a protected monument, meant that the Places of Worship Act , 1911, would not apply to it. The court then went on to declare Bhojshala a temple to Goddess Saraswati.The present legal dispute in Sambhal dates to November 19, 2024, when a civil suit was filed claiming the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Harihar temple dedicated to Kalki. A court-ordered survey conducted on November 24 that year set off violent clashes in which four people were killed and 30 police personnel were injured. A three-member judicial commission was subsequently constituted to probe whether the violence was spontaneous or premeditated. Twelve related criminal cases remain pending before the courts, and the title dispute is now also before the Supreme Court.With the apex court seized of the matter, any permission for repair — however structurally urgent the committee’s case may be — remains contingent on judicial clearance, leaving both the crumbling wall and the broader dispute unresolved.