Delhi High Court Seeks Responses on Access and Demolition Concerns at Race Course Mosque

Court seeks clarification in mosque-access petition

The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a petition concerning access to Race Court Masjid and fears that the structure may be demolished amid work affecting nearby premises. During the hearing, counsel for the Central government told Justice Anish Dayal that there was no immediate plan to demolish the mosque. The Court asked counsel for the government and the Delhi Waqf Board to obtain instructions and listed the matter for further consideration on 29 October 2026.

The reported statement is important but must be described accurately. It was a submission made by government counsel during an ongoing case, not a final judicial declaration that the mosque is protected from demolition indefinitely. The Court did not finally adjudicate ownership, heritage status or the legality of the restrictions on access at this hearing.

Background and petitioner's concerns

The petition was filed by Syed Ahmed Saud, who alleged that worshippers had been prevented from entering the mosque. He sought protection against possible demolition and directions permitting access for religious observance. His account connected the restrictions to a demolition drive concerning structures in the vicinity and to the reported interruption of essential services.

The petitioner asserted that the mosque is more than 150 years old, that it was notified as waqf property in 1977 and that it has Grade-II heritage recognition under a Delhi government notification from 2009. These descriptions remain claims advanced in the proceedings; the accessible hearing report does not establish that the High Court made final findings on those questions.

The petition also alleged that water and electricity connections were disconnected on 7 October 2026 and that an official accompanied by police visited the premises later that month. According to the petitioner's account, the visit prompted apprehension of imminent demolition. These allegations require the respondents' answers and any relevant administrative records before they can be treated as established facts.

Government response and judicial directions

Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit informed the Court that other structures nearby were being demolished and that restrictions on access and utilities were connected to safety concerns. When the Court sought clarity about the possibility of demolition over the following days, counsel indicated that no immediate demolition was contemplated, while expressing reservations about having the statement formally recorded in the suggested terms.

The Court did not treat the oral exchange as a substitute for complete instructions from the authorities. Instead, it issued notice and asked the concerned counsel to return with information. This procedural response preserves the opportunity for both the petitioner and the public authorities to present their positions on access, safety, property status and the scope of any threatened action.

Constitutional and administrative issues

The petition invokes Article 25 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations. Where access to a place of worship is restricted, the legality and proportionality of official measures may become relevant questions. But the existence of a religious claim does not dispense with examination of safety regulations, property records or applicable statutory procedures.

A separate issue concerns the difference between a precautionary access restriction and a decision to demolish a building. The two measures may have different factual and legal foundations. The Court will need reliable information about what the authorities have actually ordered, what they intend to do and whether any restrictions remain necessary or lawful.

Significance and next hearing

For law students, the matter illustrates the role of notice and instructions in urgent public-law litigation. Courts frequently need to establish the government's actual position before considering coercive interim orders. It also highlights why a lawyer's oral submission, a petitioner's allegation and a recorded judicial direction should not be reported as interchangeable events.

The matter is listed for 29 October 2026. The government and the Delhi Waqf Board have been asked to obtain instructions. The next hearing may clarify access arrangements and the authorities' plans; no final decision on the petition's merits has yet been reported.

Key legal points

• Delhi High Court: 27 October 2026 hearing.
• The operative outcome must be distinguished from allegations and party submissions.