The Central Government has informed the that no demolition action will be taken against the Race Course Masjid until the () arrives at a final decision regarding a filed by the . This significant development arrived during a hearing overseen by Justice Anish Dayal, who is currently filed by a local worshipper, Syed Ahmed Saud, seeking protection for the mosque against its apprehended destruction.
During the proceedings on , Central Government offered an unequivocal assurance to the Court, stating that the authorities would resolve the Waqf Board’s representation as expeditiously as possible, ideally within a four-week window. “In the meantime, we will not take any action,” Dixit confirmed, effectively placing the demolition plans for the mosque in a state of suspended animation until the next scheduled hearing on .
Utility Cuts Spark Demolition Apprehension
The petition, which has brought the status of the religious structure to the forefront of the capital’s legal discourse, stems from growing anxieties among worshippers regarding the fate of the masjid, which is located within the 53-acre premises of the near the official residence of the Prime Minister at 7, Lok Kalyan Marg. The petitioner, Syed Ahmed Saud, approached the High Court alleging an imminent threat of demolition after recent municipal actions led to the disconnection of essential electricity and water facilities within the mosque premises.
These utility disconnections occurred in conjunction with a wider demolition exercise taking place across the surrounding Race Course area. Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate , argued that the obstruction of ingress and egress had effectively barred worshippers from accessing the masjid, describing the situation as a total abdication of by the . Siddiqui contended that his client, as a regular attendee, held an independent right to religious practice that was being severely curtailed.
Government counsel , however, maintained that the utility cuts were a necessary safety measure. He informed the Court that the presence of heavy machinery, including large-scale demolition equipment such as JCBs, created a hazardous environment for any person entering or exiting the site. He further noted that the government’s actions were intended to mitigate potential security and safety risks while large-scale clearance operations remained underway in the vicinity.
Judicial Review of Heritage Site Protection
The legal dispute involves complex questions regarding the mosque’s classification and the procedural requirements for altering or removing such structures. The petitioner has relied heavily on the mosque’s status as a government-gazette-notified Waqf property since . Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the masjid holds Grade-II heritage recognition under a notification issued on .
Advocate Siddiqui argued that under these heritage protections, authorities are strictly prohibited from undertaking any structural alterations or demolition without prior, specific clearance from the . The argument suggests that the mosque is not merely a piece of land subject to general clearance orders but a protected historical asset with specific legal immunities.
Justice Anish Dayal, during the session, sought to probe the specific legal basis for the government’s clearance operation in the area. The Court inquired whether the current demolition drive was supported by the imprimatur of any prior judicial order. Justice Dayal observed that while the Court must respect earlier directives regarding the clearance of settlements in the wider Jaipur Polo Ground region, it must simultaneously scrutinize whether those orders granted blanket authority to clear every structure, or if the masjid enjoyed independent, specific legal protections that warranted a separate review. The Court stressed the importance of identifying the "genesis of action" behind the proposed demolition.
Official Assurance Halts Impending Structural Action
The , represented by Additional , informed the Court that it had formally submitted a representation to the and other relevant government authorities as early as . Despite this effort, the board admitted that the representation had not yet been processed or decided. The petitioner has also filed subsequent representations to both the and the Waqf Board, but the lack of a formal response has heightened the perception of inaction among the affected community.
Responding to these submissions, counsel for the Centre requested time to obtain formal instructions on the matter, particularly concerning the presence of a temple also situated within the same premises. The government emphasized that it wished to act in a measured manner, acknowledging the complexity of managing religious structures situated within lands slated for redevelopment. While the government rejected the petitioner's claim of having no , arguing that allowing multiple worshippers to approach the court would create a "Pandora’s box" of litigation, the core assurance of maintaining the remained the most immediate outcome of the hearing.
The Court recorded the Centre’s submission that no demolition activities would occur for the time being. This provides a temporary relief to the worshippers who have been seeking a restoration of access to the mosque. The case has been set for , by which time the authorities are expected to provide a clear status update on the representations filed by the Waqf Board. As it stands, the site remains under strict scrutiny, with the court expected to balance the administration’s redevelopment requirements against the petitioner’s assertions regarding heritage conservation and the right to religious practice in notified Waqf properties. The current procedural position ensures that the physical structure of the masjid remains protected while the legal and administrative review processes move toward a formal conclusion.
Waqf property status - Heritage conservation guidelines - Administrative demolition procedures - Religious site protection
