Centre wants Krishi Bhawan mosque removed. How did Qadeemi Masjid get there?

The Qadeemi Masjid is an old mosque on the premises of Krishi Bhawan in New Delhi’s Central Secretariat. Its name comes from the Urdu word qadeem, meaning ancient or old. The mosque matters because it predates the government complex and has been used by government employees for prayers.

The Centre says Krishi Bhawan will be demolished for the Central Vista redevelopment project. It argues that a permanent religious structure inside an office complex is impermissible and incompatible with the secular character of government property. The mosque stands where Common Central Secretariat Buildings 4 and 5 are planned.

The caretaking committee has asked the Delhi High Court to protect the mosque. It says the structure is more than a century old, was documented by 1945, and was notified as Waqf property in 1970. The Court’s proceedings will determine how the mosque’s history, land status, religious use, and redevelopment plans are weighed.

The Qadeemi Masjid is described by its caretakers as more than a century old. Its existence is documented in historical records going as far back as 1945. The name itself reinforces that history: qadeem means ancient or old.

Krishi Bhawan was built after India became independent in 1947, during the Nehru government’s construction of government offices in the 1950s and 1960s. The caretaking committee says the mosque was already present when Krishi Bhawan, Shastri Bhawan, and nearby offices were built.

The article does not provide an exact year for the mosque’s construction, so it cannot establish a precise number of years by which it predates Krishi Bhawan. It does establish the important sequence: the mosque existed before the present government complex, and records document it at least by 1945. The Delhi Waqf Board notified it as Waqf property in 1970.

The Central Vista redevelopment project is the Centre’s plan to redevelop India’s central administrative area near Raisina Hill in New Delhi. The project affects the existing government landscape, including Krishi Bhawan, a Nehruvian-era building that houses several ministries and departments.

The Centre says Krishi Bhawan is set to be demolished. It identifies the mosque’s location as the site where Common Central Secretariat Buildings 4 and 5 are to be constructed. This planned construction is the direct reason the mosque faces possible removal.

The redevelopment therefore creates a conflict between a public construction project and an established place of worship. The mosque’s caretaking committee has approached the Delhi High Court for protection. The Centre maintains that retaining it within the office complex would be impermissible and incompatible with the secular character of government property.

The 1940 agreement recognised the mosque committee’s use of the site but did not transfer the land to it. The Centre says the then administration owned the premises and gave the committee permissive possession exclusively for use as a mosque.

The agreement imposed detailed controls. The committee could not alter the property, repair existing buildings, construct graves, or raise any new structure, even temporarily, without the government’s prior written approval. These terms limited how the committee could manage or change the site.

The agreement is central to the Centre’s position because it supports the claim that the committee had permission to use the premises, rather than ownership of the underlying land. The source text also says the agreement allowed authorities to take back possession if the committee breached its terms, although the provided account ends before explaining the full breach provisions.

Permission to use land and ownership of land are different legal positions. The Centre relies on that distinction to say the mosque committee could occupy the premises for worship without acquiring the government’s title to the land beneath it.

The government cites the November 8, 1940 agreement. It says the administration owned the land and granted the Jama Masjid managing committee permissive possession exclusively for use as a mosque. The caretaking committee itself acknowledged in court that the land beneath the mosque belongs to the government.

This distinction strengthens the Centre’s argument that the site can be used for the Central Vista project. The committee’s case focuses instead on the mosque’s age, historical records, Waqf notification, continued religious use, and constitutional protections. The dispute is therefore not only about ownership, but also about whether long-standing worship and religious freedom can protect the structure from redevelopment.

If the Central Vista redevelopment proceeds as planned, the Qadeemi Masjid faces possible demolition or removal. The Centre says Krishi Bhawan will be demolished and that Common Central Secretariat Buildings 4 and 5 will occupy the mosque’s site.

The caretaking committee could lose control of the structure or its continued use, depending on the court’s decision and the redevelopment process. People who pray there could also lose a place they have long used. The committee says Krishi Bhawan employees and staff from nearby Central government offices regularly prayed at the mosque during working hours.

The immediate legal response is the committee’s petition in the Delhi High Court seeking protection. The article does not report a final ruling or say exactly what will happen to the caretakers or worshippers. The outcome will depend on how the court weighs the 1940 agreement, government land control, the mosque’s history, and Article 25.

The Centre says a permanent religious structure inside a government office complex conflicts with the secular character of government property. It also relies on government ownership of the land and the 1940 agreement, which allowed mosque use without transferring ownership.

The mosque committee invokes Article 25 of the Constitution. That provision guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to constitutional restrictions. The committee also points to the mosque’s long history, Waqf notification, and established use by government employees.

These principles create the dispute’s central balance. Government authorities seek to redevelop land for new administrative buildings and regulate property they own. The petitioners seek protection for a historic place of worship used during working hours. The Delhi High Court must consider these competing claims, although the source text does not provide a final decision.