The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court that the century-old Qadeemi Masjid located within the Krishi Bhawan premises must be removed to facilitate the ongoing Central Vista Redevelopment Project. In an affidavit submitted to the court, the Union government asserted that the retention of a permanent religious structure within a central government office complex is fundamentally incompatible with the secular character of state property. This development marks a significant escalation in the ongoing legal dispute regarding the future of the heritage structure as it stands in the path of the proposed Common Central Secretariat buildings.

The government’s position, articulated through the Land and Development Office, maintains that the land designated for the redevelopment—specifically the footprint covering the existing Krishi Bhawan and Shastri Bhawan—is required for public projects of national importance. The authorities have explicitly stated that public land within a central administrative zone cannot be encumbered by permanent religious reservations, regardless of the historical tenure of the existing structure.

Redevelopment Mandate and Land Tenure The dispute centers on the status of the land at Plot No. 120, which is currently occupied by the government complex. According to the government’s submission, the managing committee of the mosque has historically held only “permissive possession” of the site, following an agreement executed in November 1940. The government argues that this agreement was limited in scope and never conferred any ownership rights, title, or permanent interest to the committee. Consequently, the Union government maintains that it is under no legal obligation to provide an alternative space within the new administrative complex, noting that other religious facilities, such as the Shahi Masjid Zabta Ganj near India Gate, remain accessible within a two-kilometre radius.

The affidavit argues that the infrastructure overhaul is essential to modernize governmental functioning and administrative capacity. By characterizing the redevelopment of the Common Central Secretariat as a national priority, the government seeks to clear the site of existing encumbrances to ensure the project’s adherence to the approved master plan. The authorities emphasized that, “The establishment or retention of a permanent religious structure, or a demand for one, within the confines of a central government office complex is impermissible and incompatible with the secular character of Government property.”

Judicial Inquiry into Prayer Space Policies During the hearing on November 2, Justice Anish Dayal questioned the absolute nature of the government’s stance regarding religious facilities on public land. The Court specifically sought clarification on whether there are established, non-discriminatory rules that categorically bar prayer facilities for all religious communities within government premises. Recognizing the broader implications of the government's argument, the Court requested that the government counsel, Nishant Gautam, convey this inquiry to the Additional Solicitor General.

The Court’s focus remains on understanding whether the policy cited by the government is consistently applied as a rule-based framework or if it is an ad-hoc decision regarding the specific redevelopment site. By seeking a clearer explanation of the “conspectus” of the government's secular character argument, the Court is probing the legal boundaries of how state-owned administrative spaces may interact with the religious requirements of those who work within them.

Petitioner Concerns and Future Proceedings The caretaking committee of Qadeemi Masjid, which approached the High Court in September, had initially sought to prevent the demolition by invoking rights under Article 25 of the Constitution. Represented by senior advocate Salman Khurshid, the committee has argued that the mosque has served as a place of worship for generations of government employees, thereby establishing its utility as a prayer facility within the workplace. While the petitioners have clarified that they do not intend to stall the national redevelopment project, they had requested a “reasonable, proximate and adequate alternative prayer facility” if the current site could not be retained.

The legal arguments on behalf of the committee emphasize the mosque’s notification as a Waqf property by the Delhi Waqf Board in 1970 and its long-standing history predating the surrounding government buildings. However, the government has challenged the applicability of constitutional protections to this situation, contending that the freedom of religion does not grant an inherent right to insist upon maintaining a permanent place of worship on government-owned land that is currently held under a permissive arrangement.

The High Court has granted the mosque’s committee additional time to file a formal response to the government’s affidavit. The legal battle highlights a recurring tension between state-led modernization projects and the preservation of historic religious sites located on public administrative land. As the case proceeds, the Court’s examination of the government’s rules regarding prayer space may determine not only the immediate fate of the Qadeemi Masjid but also set a precedent for how the state reconciles its administrative requirements with existing religious facilities across the national capital’s evolving central district.

The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on November 23, when the Court will likely weigh the government’s arguments regarding the secular nature of the Central Vista project against the committee's claims for continued access to a place of worship. Until the next hearing, the government’s position remains that the project’s execution is non-negotiable and that the current site must be cleared to fulfill the objectives of the infrastructure redevelopment master plan.