Delhi: Demolition of heritage mosque near PM Modi’s official residence paused for four weeks

The demolition of the Race Course mosque was not cancelled. It was temporarily paused after the government assured the Delhi High Court that authorities would take no coercive action against the structure for four weeks. The dispute matters because the government calls the mosque unauthorised, while the New Delhi Municipal Council lists it as a heritage property.

The court was hearing a worshipper’s plea challenging the demolition and seeking access to the mosque. The Delhi Waqf Board also submitted a representation to the Land and Development Office, which manages government-owned and leasehold properties in Delhi. The office will decide on that representation during the pause.

The government still opposed allowing people into the mosque, citing safety concerns linked to demolitions nearby. The pause therefore protects the building from immediate coercive action, but it does not settle its legal status or guarantee worshippers access. The office’s decision and any further court action will shape what happens next.

The demolition pause lasts four weeks. This period began after the government told the Delhi High Court that it would not take coercive action against the mosque during that time. The pause gives the Land and Development Office time to consider a representation filed by the Delhi Waqf Board.

The earlier eviction notice allowed much less time. Issued on October 19, it said the mosque stood on government land and was unauthorised. The Land and Development Office directed mosque authorities to vacate the premises within six days. Electricity and water had also been disconnected, according to mosque authorities.

The difference between six days and four weeks is important. The notice demanded a rapid departure, while the court process has created a temporary period for review. The pause does not decide whether the mosque may remain. It only prevents coercive action while the government considers the Waqf Board’s representation and the court examines the worshipper’s plea.

The government’s stated position is that the mosque stands on government land and is therefore unauthorised. The Land and Development Office, which manages government-owned and leasehold properties in Delhi, used that claim in its October 19 eviction notice. It ordered the mosque authorities to vacate within six days.

At the same time, the Race Course mosque appears on the New Delhi Municipal Council’s website as a heritage property. Heritage listing and land control are different issues. A listing can identify a structure as historically important, but the article does not state that it grants ownership, confirms permission to occupy government land, or prevents every possible legal action.

The two positions remain in tension. The government has not explained in the article how the heritage listing affects its unauthorised-land claim. The Delhi Waqf Board has made a representation to the Land and Development Office, which will decide on it during the four-week pause. The court is also considering a worshipper’s plea seeking access.

A waqf is an endowment under Islamic law dedicated to a religious, educational, or charitable cause. The article explains that each state has a waqf board, a legal entity with powers to acquire, hold, and transfer property. Waqf status can therefore affect how property connected with religious or charitable use is treated.

“Waqf by user” refers to property treated as waqf because it has long been used for religious purposes. Asaduddin Owaisi argued that the mosque was protected under the Waqf Amendment Act on this basis. He also said it had been a gazetted waqf property since 1977.

Owaisi further argued that properties registered as waqf in the past remain protected under the amended law. These claims are part of the dispute over the mosque’s future. The article does not report a final ruling on whether the mosque qualifies for that protection. The Land and Development Office is due to consider the Delhi Waqf Board’s representation during the four-week pause.

Continued restrictions could prevent worshippers from reaching the mosque and offering namaz. Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind specifically urged the Union Minority Affairs Minister to ensure worshippers could access the mosque without obstruction. The organisation also asked for protection of the adjoining graveyard, which it feared could be demolished.

The practical problem is already visible. Mosque authorities said electricity and water had been disconnected after the eviction notice. If those services remain cut off, the building may be difficult to use for religious activity and daily needs. The government also opposed access, citing safety concerns because demolitions were taking place in the area.

These consequences are possible, not final outcomes reported by the article. The four-week pause prevents coercive action, but it does not restore access or utilities. The Delhi Waqf Board’s representation, the Land and Development Office’s decision, and the High Court proceedings will determine whether worshippers return, restrictions continue, or the site faces further action.

Conflicts involving public land, heritage, and religious property usually require authorities to examine each claim separately. They may verify land records, permissions, ownership or management rights, heritage listings, and the institution’s legal status. The aim is to determine whether public ownership overrides an occupation claim, or whether heritage and religious protections limit government action.

A common mechanism is administrative review combined with court oversight. An agency managing public land can issue a notice, while the affected institution submits evidence or a formal representation. A court may temporarily prevent demolition, hear arguments from worshippers and authorities, and require officials to explain their decisions. Heritage bodies may also assess whether protection applies.

In this case, the Land and Development Office will consider the Delhi Waqf Board’s representation, while the Delhi High Court hears a worshipper’s plea. The article does not state the final legal rules or outcome. Any resolution would need to address the government’s land claim, the heritage listing, and the asserted waqf protections together.