Delhi High Court: Centre Seeks Qadeemi Masjid Removal for Central Vista

• The Central Government is seeking the removal of the Qadeemi Masjid from Krishi Bhawan to facilitate the Central Vista redevelopment project.
• The government argues the mosque occupies government land under a 1940 permissive possession agreement that did not grant ownership or proprietary rights.
• It contends that a permanent religious structure within a central government office complex is incompatible with the secular character of government property.
• The mosque's location falls within the planned site for new Common Central Secretariat buildings, a project deemed of national importance.
• The Delhi High Court is currently hearing a petition from the mosque's caretaking committee, with the next hearing scheduled for November 23.

The government maintains that the presence of a permanent religious structure within a central government office complex is fundamentally incompatible with the secular character of state-owned property.

The Central Government has informed the Delhi High Court of its intention to remove the century-old Qadeemi Masjid, located within the Krishi Bhawan complex in New Delhi. This action is deemed necessary to facilitate the extensive Central Vista redevelopment project, specifically the reconstruction of Common Central Secretariat (CCS) Buildings 4 and 5. The government's stance, articulated in a status report filed by the Land and Development Office (L&DO), asserts that the mosque occupies government-owned land and its continued presence is inconsistent with the secular character of government property.

The government's submission to the Delhi High Court came in response to a petition lodged by the Qadeemi Masjid's caretaking committee. The committee initiated legal proceedings due to concerns about the mosque's potential demolition during the Central Vista redevelopment project. Justice Anish Dayal presided over the initial hearing on November 2, during which the court posed a direct question to the Centre: whether any existing regulations prohibit the allocation of space for community prayer within a government-controlled area. Central Government Standing Counsel Nishant Gautam was instructed to relay this inquiry to the Additional Solicitor General, with the next hearing scheduled for November 23.

The government has emphasized that the Krishi Bhawan and the broader Central Secretariat complex are designated exclusively for governmental, administrative, and public service functions. It argues that public land situated within a central administrative zone cannot be permanently reserved for a religious structure. Furthermore, the government has proposed the Shahi Masjid Zabta Ganj, located approximately two kilometers away near India Gate, as a suitable alternative prayer facility for the community.

The Central Government's argument for the mosque's removal hinges significantly on a permissive possession agreement dating back to November 8, 1940. This agreement was originally executed between the then-Government of India and the Secretary of the Managing Committee, Jama Masjid, Delhi. According to the L&DO, the Qadeemi Masjid is situated at Plot No. 120, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, within the Krishi Bhawan compound, with the land legally belonging to the Government of India and falling under the administrative purview of the L&DO, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.

The 1940 agreement explicitly granted the committee permissive possession of the premises solely for use as a mosque, without conferring any ownership, title, or proprietary interest in the land. Crucially, the terms of this agreement also stipulated that the committee was prohibited from undertaking alterations, repairs to existing structures, constructing graves, or erecting any new structures, even temporarily, without obtaining prior written approval from the government. Moreover, the agreement contained a provision empowering the government to reclaim possession of the land in the event of any breach of its stipulated terms.

Based on these historical provisions, the Centre contends that the caretaking committee of the Qadeemi Masjid cannot assert an enforceable right to maintain the mosque at its current location. The government maintains that there is no legal basis for the committee to demand that a portion of the Krishi Bhawan compound be permanently reserved for religious purposes, especially given the explicit conditions of the original permissive possession agreement.

The necessity for the Qadeemi Masjid's removal is directly linked to the ambitious Central Vista Redevelopment Master Plan. This comprehensive plan includes the reconstruction of CCS Buildings 4 and 5 on Plot No. 120, which encompasses the existing sites of both Krishi Bhawan and Shastri Bhawan. The government has characterized this proposed construction as a public project of paramount national importance, designed to modernize essential infrastructure vital for the nation's governance and administrative operations.

Since the mosque's current location falls squarely within the designated footprint of this critical development site, its removal is presented as an indispensable step for the planned construction to proceed. The government maintains that the presence of a permanent religious structure within a central government office complex is fundamentally incompatible with the secular character of state-owned property. This principle underscores the government's broader argument that public land in a central administrative zone should not be permanently allocated for religious structures, reinforcing the idea that such spaces are dedicated solely to official governmental functions.

This case sets a precedent for the government's ability to reclaim land occupied by religious structures under permissive possession agreements, particularly when such land is required for public development projects. Lawyers should monitor the Delhi HC's ruling for implications on property rights, secularism in government land use, and the enforceability of historical land agreements in India.

Source: Original reporting via Lawbeat News Desk