In a major development in the ongoing dispute over the Sambhal Jama Masjid and Harihar Temple, an affidavit filed by Vinod Singh Rawat, the Superintending Archaeologist in the Meerut circle of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), has revealed a pattern of efforts to conceal facts regarding the disputed mosque. The affidavit claims that the ASI officers were not allowed to enter the mosque for inspection and that the Jama Masjid management committee has made several interventions and modifications inside the mosque.

The affidavit, accessed and shared by journalist Rahul Shivshankar on X, states, "In response to para 4 and 5 of the petition it is submitted that the situation is also very tough for ASI. Even officers of the ASI were not allowed to enter the monument for the purpose of inspection. However, ASI with the support from District Administration took up inspection of the monument time to time. A team of ASI had inspected the monument in the year 1998. Most recent inspection of the monument by ASI team was done on 25th June, 2024. A copy of the inspection note is also attached herewith as Annexure-I."

Rawat further states that the Jama Masjid management committee has carried out various interventions and modifications at the mosque, but the ASI has been unable to inspect these changes due to restrictions. The affidavit reads, "In response to para 32 and 33 it is submitted that the Masjid Management Committee involved in the monument has carried out various interventions, additions, modifications etc. at the monument. The inspection undertaken by ASI officers in the month of June 2024 records some of the interventions done at the monument. A copy of said inspection note may please be seen at Annexure-I. However, there are restrictions on ASI team for inspection, the current status and additions carried out are not known to ASI."

This affidavit is crucial in the case, as the disputed site was declared a protected monument on December 22, 1920, by a notification issued by the Secretary to the Government of United Provinces under Section 3(3) of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act. The petitioners in the case argue that the ASI failed to control the management of the site despite it being a protected monument and that the site should be under ASI's supervision for maintenance, management, and public access.

The petitioners also argue that ASI should be the legal custodian of the monument. They contend that it is illegal for the Jama Masjid committee to administer the ASI-protected site and prevent the ASI from conducting inspections. The affidavit raises questions regarding why the Jama Masjid management committee has been allowed to restrict access to the mosque and what they may be concealing.

The affidavit's revelations have sparked further questions about the legal status of the Sambhal Jama Masjid and its management, and whether the ASI can enforce its role as the monument's custodian. As the case continues, the public remains eager to learn more about the interventions at the mosque and whether the ASI can assert its authority over the site.