Today, On 29th December, The Supreme Court heard a petition challenging demolition of a structure a madarsa on Mehrauli–Badarpur Road. CJI Surya Kant said, “If it were a historical structure, we could have examined it, but this concerns an illegal slum-area structure.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard a petition challenging the demolition of a structure described as a madarsa on Mehrauli–Badarpur Road.
The dispute arises in the backdrop of an ongoing slum redevelopment project and conflicting claims about whether the structure is a religious place.
The Bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih is hearing the matter.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora argued that,
“A mosque is now being demolished even though a plea is pending before the Waqf Tribunal; action is being taken before adjudication.”
In response, CJI Surya Kant said,
“If it were a historical structure, we could have examined it. But this concerns an illegal structure in a slum area. Until now, it was referred to only as a madarsa the term masjid is being introduced now. If you want us to speak plainly, we will.”
The CJI further remarked,
“Additional land was allotted for running a madarsa. Now, internal disputes are being used to stall the process. Don’t poor residents deserve education facilities? We know at whose behest these petitions are filed. If it is proved to be a masjid, it can be reconstructed. The area was declared a slum in 1986, redevelopment began with consent, and facilities including a madarsa were provided. This mosque claim has surfaced only now.”
Arora then submitted that,
“Under the SRA scheme, a portion is earmarked for a masjid.”
The CJI responded by stating,
“Over 680 people have been shifted to alternate accommodation, which you have accepted. That is why the High Court even noted possible perjury.”
After hearing all sides, the Supreme Court said that since the issue regarding the nature of the property is already pending before the Waqf Tribunal, the High Court’s refusal to grant ad-interim injunction does not require interference.
The Court concluded with the direction,
“Respondent No. 4 is directed to videograph the site prior to dismantling and before commencing construction in terms of the approved project.”
Read Live Coverage
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
