Kashmir clerics, including Mirwaiz, say eviction of Delhi’s historic Race Course mosque ‘deeply disturbing’

The Race Course Mosque in Delhi faces eviction after receiving a notice giving it six days to leave. It is described as both a gazetted Waqf property since 1977 and a listed heritage site. That combination makes the notice especially significant for its legal status and historical importance.

The six-day deadline is the immediate mechanism creating uncertainty. The clerics argue that the mosque’s legal recognition should be examined and that the Waqf authorities should defend it. They also call for due process before any action is taken.

The article does not state that eviction has occurred or explain who issued the notice. Instead, it records demands for urgent intervention from Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju and Waqf authorities. The dispute may now turn on legal review, institutional action, and whether the mosque receives effective protection.

A Waqf property is property dedicated permanently to religious, charitable, or community purposes under Islamic law. It is not treated simply as an ordinary private asset. A mosque is a religious endowment because its use is dedicated to worship and its value is held in trust for the religious community.

The article describes Waqf properties as “sacred trusts” with religious and historical significance. It identifies the Race Course Mosque as a gazetted Waqf property since 1977. Waqf authorities are expected to help protect and manage such properties, while respecting their religious purpose.

That status matters because the clerics say the mosque should not face arbitrary interference. They seek legal examination, due process, institutional accountability, and safeguards. The article does not detail the mosque’s title documents or the specific legal basis for the notice, so those questions remain unresolved.

The Race Course Mosque had gazetted Waqf recognition dating from 1977. Since the article is published in 2026, the property had held that stated recognition for roughly 49 years before the current eviction dispute. The article presents this long history as central to the concern.

Its gazetted status is paired with another important description: the mosque is a listed heritage site. Those two facts form the basis for the clerics’ argument that the property deserves careful protection and a lawful review before eviction. They say its longstanding history should not be treated casually.

The article does not provide the exact date in 1977 when recognition began, so 49 years is an approximate calculation. It also does not describe any earlier dispute over the property. The immediate issue is the six-day notice and whether responsible authorities will intervene, examine the legal status, and ensure due process.

Eviction could have legal and practical effects for the mosque and its worshippers. It could interrupt access to a place of worship, alter the property’s use, and trigger a dispute over the meaning and protection of its gazetted Waqf status. Because the mosque is also listed as a heritage site, its historical character could become part of the concern.

The article gives no final court ruling or detailed eviction plan. It does say that clerics want the mosque’s legal status examined and due process respected. They also ask authorities to review the notice, protect the property, and provide effective safeguards against arbitrary interference.

The practical consequence could therefore depend on what the responsible authorities do next. If they fail to act, Nasir-ul-Islam Farooqi warned that community trust in the institutions protecting Muslim religious properties could be shaken. The article does not establish that eviction is inevitable or describe a relocation arrangement.

Kashmir’s clerics connect the notice to the Waqf Act amendments because they had opposed changes that increased government control over Muslim religious endowments. They argue that a legally recognised mosque now facing eviction illustrates their concern about whether Waqf institutions can act independently and protect religious properties.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq specifically linked the dispute to government-appointed nominees over Muslim religious endowments. Nasir-ul-Islam Farooqi similarly cited concerns about institutional independence, accountability, and religious rights. Their mechanism is straightforward: more government influence may affect how properties are managed and defended when disputes arise.

These claims are presented as concerns, not as a finding that the amendments caused the notice. The article does not describe the amendments’ exact provisions or establish a legal connection between them and this case. The clerics nevertheless say the episode reinforces their demand for autonomy, accountability, and safeguards.

The article places primary responsibility for protecting Muslim religious properties with the concerned Waqf authorities. It criticises their reported failure to defend the Race Course Mosque and says institutions entrusted with protection must be accountable. Their immediate role is to examine the mosque’s status, respond to the notice, and seek lawful safeguards.

Nasir-ul-Islam Farooqi urged Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju and the concerned Waqf authorities to intervene immediately. This shows the ministry’s practical role in the controversy: it is being asked to use its government position to address the dispute and press the responsible authorities to act.

The article does not set out the ministry’s exact statutory powers or describe the Waqf authorities’ internal structure. It does say that government-appointed nominees have a growing role in managing Muslim religious endowments. The broader question is whether protection can remain effective, independent, and accountable under that arrangement.

Due process means authorities must follow lawful and fair procedures before taking action against religious property. That includes examining the property’s legal status, giving affected parties a proper opportunity to respond, and avoiding arbitrary decisions. The clerics apply this principle directly to the six-day eviction notice.

Institutional accountability means Waqf authorities must answer for how they protect and manage properties entrusted to them. In this case, the clerics question the reported failure to defend the mosque. Autonomy means Waqf institutions and Muslim religious bodies should retain meaningful independence in managing religious endowments, rather than being controlled improperly.

The article treats these principles as safeguards for religious rights and community trust. It does not provide a court’s assessment of whether the notice met legal standards. It records calls for review, fairness, institutional responsibility, and protection through the rule of law before any eviction proceeds.