Srinagar: Dr Kamal-ud-Din Farooqui, retired professor and former Imam-o-Khateeb at the Aasar-i-Shareef Dargah Hazratbal has challenged his continued exclusion from performing religious duties at the shrine in April 2024. On Thursday (September 10) Farooqui filed a writ petition against the J&K Waqf Board and its chairperson since 2022, Dr Darakhshan Andrabi, a Bharatiya Janata Party leader who holds the rank of minister of state, and others at the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.In his petition, Farooqui challenges the order issued by the Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar), J&K Waqf Board, on April 8, 2024. The order relieved him of his duties pending an enquiry into an alleged forced conversion incident at Hazratbal on April 5, 2024. A date for the first hearing is yet to be decided.The controversy started in 2024, when Haryana resident Sandeep Kumar, who worked as a domestic help in Srinagar, embraced Islam during congregational prayers on Jumu’atul-Wida, the last Friday of Ramzan. Farooqui had led the ceremonies while Kumar recited the Shahada before the gathering.A video of those minutes had circulated at the time, in which Kumar can be heard responding to Farooqui’s questions, saying he was accepting Islam “by my own sweet will” and not under threat, intimidation or greed. The video includes a few policemen and others, whom Farooqui has identified as Waqf employees.The petition names the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, the J&K Waqf Board through its Chief Executive Officer, Waqf Board Chairperson Dr Darakhshan Andrabi, the Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar), the J&K Waqf Board, the SSP Srinagar, the SHO of the Nigeen Police Station and the Administrator/In-charge of the shrine as respondents.Farooqui’s writ petitionFarooqui alleges that the Waqf Board effectively reached “adverse conclusions” against him before conducting an inquiry. The incident was described as a “forcible conversion” by the administration. He alleged that the order violates Islamic law and government regulations that require that he be given notice and a chance to explain his position.The petition also mentions a representation from people from different districts of Kashmir, who said they were present when Kumar recited the Shahada, which they sent to the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, in June 2024. Kumar was given a name of Mohammad Abdullah after reading the Shahada.“They [signatories to the representation] stated that the concerned individual had publicly declared that he wished to embrace Islam of his own free will and without pressure, coercion, threat or fear. They also referred to the presence of Waqf employees, the shrine administration, police personnel and other witnesses at the time of the incident,” Kamal writes in the writ petition.The petition says the incident took place in the presence of Waqf employees, the shrine administration, police personnel and witnesses. “The request was not made secretly or in any private setting. It was made openly in the presence of the shrine administration, Waqf employees, police personnel, the Naib Imam, the Mu’azzin, Mujawirs and other persons seated near the Mehrab,” it says.“The concerned person [Kumar] was brought before the petitioner through the Naib Imam, a functionary of the Waqf Board, in the presence of the administrator, Mu’azzin, Mujawirs, other Waqf employees and police officials. None of these officials raised any objection, prevented his access, withdrew the microphone or instructed the Petitioner not to proceed,” the petition states.Questioning the 2024 order relieving him of his duties, Farooqui said that it was supposed to be a temporary step, only until the completion of an inquiry into the incident. He said that the committee had been directed to submit its factual report within seven days. However, the inquiry was not completed within the allotted time and no report or final decision was communicated to him.Farooqui says he appeared before the inquiry committee on May 5, 2024, and submitted a detailed written statement before it. “The respondents cannot take advantage of their own inaction and continue an interim restriction for an unlimited duration,” the petition says, calling his continued exclusion an “indefinite and disproportionate punishment without adjudication”.Police action in 2024After the video of Kumar reciting the Shahadah had surfaced in 2024, an FIR had been filed against his employer, Anayat Muntazir. Police had alleged that Kumar had been “mentally manipulated and coerced to embrace Islam”. The police had justified the action saying that the circulation of the video had “stirred unrest and raised concerns over religious harmony and tolerance”.Police had claimed that the incident could fuel “sectarianism and communal discord” and invoked Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, related to disobedience of an order by a public servant, apart from Section 298 (hurting religious feelings deliberately), Section 153 (provoking a riot) and Section 153-A (promoting enmity, etc.).Farooqui, however, denies all the charges against him and questions the Waqf Board’s authority to remove him. He claims that he is not an employee of the Waqf Board and that he was chosen by the people as Imam of the Hazratbal shrine after his brother Bashir-ud-Din Farooqui died. He says his family has been performing the duties of Imam-o-Khateeb at Hazratbal for around 350 years.The date of the hearing in Dr Kamal-ud-Din Farooqui’s case will be updated once the petitioner’s counsel confirms it.