Delhi HC: Anointment of Bukhari son won’t create right in his favour

The court said since the masjid was the residence of the Bukhari family, it “did not feel any need” to restrain the Imam from holding the ceremony in Jama Masjid.

The court clarified that the anointment of Shaban Bukhari “or any other person as Naib Imam of the Jama Masjid shall be subject to further orders on the petitions before the court”.

The court also issued notices to all parties to respond to the three PILs by January.

The court noted that “The Wakf Act 1995 provides only for appointment of a Mutawalli (manager) of a Wakf and contains no provision for appointment of Imams”.

It issued notices to Bukhari, the Centre, Waqf Board, Archaeological Survey of India, the Delhi government, the Delhi Police, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority to reply to the main petition which has challenged the continuation of Bukhari as the Imam of Jama Masjid.

The court noted that the Wakf Board has declared itself the mutawalli of Jama Masjid and pulled up the board for not taking action against Bukhari.

“No answer is forthcoming as to why the Delhi Wakf Board has not exercised any rights or supervision over the Jama Masjid or as to why it has allowed Maulana Syed Ahmed Bukhari to appropriate all earnings from the said masjid…,” the court said.

Advocate D P Singh, who had appeared on behalf of petitioner Suhail Ahmed Khan said he welcomed the decision as the court has now decided to take up the larger issues in the case. Advocate Saif Mehmood, who had filed a second plea on behalf of an NGO, also said the “institutional integrity of the Jama Masjid and the Wakf Board” were at stake.