Authorities on Friday disallowed Hurriyat chairman and Kashmir Valley chief cleric Mirwaiz Umar Farooq to lead the prayers at Jamia Masjid in Srinagar even as the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has listed his “house detention” case for March 6.
Sources said the authorities and the caretaker body of Jamia Masjid, Anjuman Auqaf Jama Masjid, held several rounds of talks in the past few days to prepare the ground for the 50-year-old Mirwaiz to deliver the sermon and join congregational prayers this Friday. However, sources said the talks failed to yield results.
“On Thursday, the authorities informed them that the Mirwaiz would be allowed to come to Jamia for the Friday prayers and sermon, but Friday morning they reneged on their promise and again put him under house detention,” a spokesperson of the Auqaf said.
The Auqaf spokesperson described the move as “unjust”. “The Mirwaiz was unjustly prevented from carrying out his religious duties at the Jama Masjid, a place of significant spiritual importance to the Muslims. This restriction not only impedes on his fundamental rights but also on the rights of the community members who benefit from his teachings,” the spokesperson said.
The High Court is hearing a petition filed by the Mirwaiz’s lawyer on March 6, in which he accused the administration of placing him “under house arrest” since 2019 and only allowing him to join Friday prayers except for three Fridays in September last year.
“We place our hopes in the judicial system to uphold justice, ensuring the restoration of Farooq’s religious and civil rights , as the matter is scheduled for hearing in court on March 6. The freedom to practise religion freely without hindrance is a fundamental right. We request the courts for its restoration,” the spokesperson added.
The court on February 21 gave the Lieutenant Governor’s administration “the last and final opportunity” to file its reply on the reasons behind placing the Mirwaiz under “house arrest” in Srinagar.
In the petition, the Mirwaiz had claimed that due to misinformation, he has no other remedy than to approach the court for seeking appropriate legal and constitutional remedy for the redressal of his grievances, while seeking “his release from illegal confinement”.
