Justice Anish Dayal heard a petition filed by Syed Ahmed Saud, a worshipper seeking protection against possible demolition and restoration of access to the mosque. The court did not grant his request for immediate permission to pray at the premises.
Central government standing counsel Ashish Dixit, representing the Land and Development Office (L&DO), informed the court that the Waqf Board’s representation would be considered expeditiously and decided within four weeks. He assured the bench that no action would be taken against the mosque while that process remained pending.
The assurance provides interim protection against demolition but does not resolve the separate dispute over entry to the premises. Worshippers have complained that restrictions on movement prevent them from offering prayers, despite the mosque’s asserted religious and heritage status.
Dixit maintained that access could not be restored because demolition operations in the surrounding area created safety concerns. The government’s position was challenged by advocate M Sufian Siddiqui, appearing for Saud, who argued that photographs taken on Thursday showed no demolition activity continuing at the location.
Siddiqui submitted that the clearance exercise had already been completed and questioned the justification for keeping the mosque inaccessible. The court recorded his objections and directed the Union government to submit a status report accompanied by photographs.
The disagreement over conditions at the site remains material to the request for access. While the authorities have cited public safety, the petitioner maintains that the continuing restrictions interfere with worship without sufficient justification.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for December 16, leaving the access question open while the L&DO examines the Waqf Board’s representation. The government’s undertaking concerns action against the structure and does not amount to permission for religious gatherings.
Dixit also challenged Saud’s standing to maintain the proceedings. He argued that entertaining petitions from individual worshippers could encourage numerous similar applications. Siddiqui opposed that objection, maintaining that his client was entitled to seek protection of his own religious rights.
Saud has invoked constitutional protections, including Article 25, which guarantees freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations. His petition seeks unobstructed entry and exit, alongside safeguards against demolition or other coercive measures.
The petitioner has also asked the court to require the Delhi Waqf Board to fulfil its statutory responsibilities concerning the mosque. He contends that the board failed to take adequate measures to preserve the property and protect access after restrictions were imposed.
The mosque stands within the Race Course Club premises, an area covering approximately 53 acres near 7, Lok Kalyan Marg, the Prime Minister’s official residence. The wider locality has been affected by government efforts to recover land and remove structures identified for clearance.
According to the petition, electricity and water supplies to the mosque were disconnected on October 7 during demolition operations involving nearby settlements. Saud argues that the mosque itself was not identified among the encroachments targeted in the clearance exercise.
His petition describes the mosque as a notified Waqf property, referring to a 1977 notification published in the Delhi Gazette. It also cites a 2009 notification which, he maintains, recognises the premises as a Grade-II heritage structure.
Those classifications form part of the petitioner’s case against demolition. The proceedings on Thursday did not finally determine the mosque’s legal status, the validity of the restrictions or the competing claims concerning use of the land.
At an earlier hearing on Tuesday, the Centre had indicated that no demolition action would be taken against the mosque before Thursday. The court sought clearer instructions about the authorities’ intentions, leading to the undertaking presented at the subsequent hearing.
The petitioner has additionally alleged that officials verbally warned the mosque’s imam to vacate the premises. That allegation remains part of his account of the apprehended demolition rather than a finding made by the court.
The Delhi Waqf Board had approached the authorities separately concerning the mosque. Its representation is now the subject of the four-week decision period communicated to the High Court by the L&DO.
