The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that the more than 100-year-old Qadeemi Masjid located within the Krishi Bhawan complex must be removed to facilitate the Central Vista redevelopment project, arguing that retaining a permanent religious structure on government office premises is incompatible with their secular character.
In a status report filed through the Land and Development Office (L&DO) under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the government maintained that Krishi Bhawan and the Central Secretariat complex were public premises designated exclusively for administrative, governmental and public service functions.
The Centre said the mosque stood on land earmarked for the construction of Common Central Secretariat (CCS) Buildings 4 and 5, which would replace the existing Krishi Bhawan and Shastri Bhawan buildings.
It described the redevelopment as a project of paramount national importance, intended to modernise infrastructure essential for the functioning of the government.
๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ด๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐
The government argued that permanent religious structures could not be retained within central administrative complexes because public land designated for official purposes could not be permanently reserved for religious use.
It submitted that the establishment or retention of a permanent religious structure within a central government office complex was incompatible with the secular character of government property.
According to the Centre, the Qadeemi Masjid stands at Plot No. 120 on Dr Rajendra Prasad Road, which is government-owned land under the administrative control of the L&DO.
The government further contended that reserving any portion of the redevelopment site for religious purposes would be inconsistent with the approved Central Vista Master Plan.
๐๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ธ๐ ๐ฐ๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐
During the hearing on November 2, Justice Anish Dayal questioned whether any specific rules prohibited the provision of prayer facilities for religious communities within government premises.
The court asked the Centre's counsel, Nishant Gautam, to communicate the query to the Additional Solicitor General and clarify the legal basis of the government's position.
The judge also sought to understand whether the prohibition asserted by the government applied uniformly to prayer facilities for all religious communities.
The court's observations were preliminary and did not constitute a ruling on the legality of the mosque's proposed removal.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 23, with the mosque's caretaking committee given an opportunity to respond to the Centre's submissions.
๐ ๐ผ๐๐พ๐๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ด๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ๐
Qadeemi Masjid is believed to be more than a century old and predates the construction of the present Krishi Bhawan complex.
The mosque has historically served Muslim employees working at Krishi Bhawan and neighbouring central government offices. The Delhi Waqf Board notified it as a Waqf property in 1970.
The Centre, however, cited an agreement executed on November 8, 1940, between the government and the secretary of Jama Masjid's managing committee.
According to the government, the agreement granted only permissive possession of the land for use as a mosque and did not confer ownership or permanent rights over the property.
The Centre argued that the arrangement could not prevent the government from using the land for redevelopment.
๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฎ๐น๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐บ๐ผ๐๐พ๐๐ฒ
The government also rejected the contention that the proposed removal would violate the constitutional right to freedom of religion under Article 25.
It argued that the provision did not create an absolute entitlement to worship at a particular location on government-owned land held under a permissive arrangement.
The Centre further informed the court that Shahi Masjid Zabta Ganj, near India Gate, was situated within a two-kilometre radius of Krishi Bhawan and remained fully functional.
It maintained that the nearby mosque could serve as an alternative prayer facility and that the government could not be compelled to earmark separate religious space within the redeveloped secretariat complex.
๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ธ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐บ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป
The proceedings arose from a petition filed by the caretaking committee of Qadeemi Masjid, which approached the High Court apprehending that the structure could be demolished as part of the redevelopment.
The petitioners sought directions restraining the authorities from demolishing, dismantling or disturbing the mosque without first undertaking a fair and reasoned consideration of its continued existence.
They maintained that they were not opposed to the Central Vista redevelopment project but wanted the mosque to be retained or a reasonable alternative prayer facility provided nearby if its removal became unavoidable.
The dispute has consequently brought before the High Court questions concerning the use of government land, the protection of established places of worship and the extent of religious accommodation within public administrative complexes.
The court will examine the competing submissions when the matter comes up for hearing on November 23.