MP: HC allows partial demolition of mosque for Simhastha Kumbh

The court said "it is a hard reality" that the population has increased, but the Ujjain Municipal Corporation is empowered to take necessary actions.

Ujjain: The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday, September 9, dismissed two writ petitions against the Ujjain Municipal Corporation’s (UMC) notice to demolish a portion of the Shahi Masjid for road widening ahead of the 2028 Simhastha Kumbh, a Hindu pilgrimage.

A single-judge bench led by Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt ruled that the Corporation’s proposed civic actions fell under the applicable statutory provisions and were carried out only after allowing the mosque management to be heard.

‘Petitioners not cooperating with the demolition’

The court said the action did not violate Articles 14 (equality before the law), 25 (freedom of conscience and freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), or 300A (persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law) of the Constitution.

One tap — then press “Add” on Google

It said that the petitioners are “not cooperating” with the process by raising “one or another dispute”.

“It seems that the petitioners are not cooperating with the process of the widening of the road by raising one or another dispute under the pretext of giving special treatment to the religious place and also believing that differential treatment is being given to the petitioners,” Justice Bhatt said.

“Based on the above-mentioned discussion, such contentions are found to be incorrect,” he asserted.

UMC notice, action found to be lawful

Taking note of the mosques’ location, the upcoming pilgrimage, the expected number of devotees, and the need for traffic control, the court found the civic action lawful.

“Therefore, considering the upcoming event of the Simhastha Kumbh 2028, whereby the expectations of crores of devotees are required to be kept in mind, as well as the need to provide better facilities and to manage the traffic of such events; and considering the situation of the premises in question, which is almost opposite to the Mahakaleshwar Temple and very near to the Kshipra River; and for the consideration of the larger public safety and larger public interest, the action taken by the respondent is found to be after following the necessary provisions of law.”

Filed by persons claiming to be the mosque’s administrators, the petitioners said it is a registered waqf property and challenged the demolition notice. They said the proposed demolition would affect the 120-foot minaret, part of the prayer hall or the jamat khana and the Mazhar Chouk Shahi.

The petitioners had argued that the UMC failed to follow the procedure under the MP Municipal Corporation Act pertaining to the regulations of public streets, obstructions, and unauthorised digging or breaking of pavements.

‘Hard reality’

The court, however, held that the proposed demolition order was passed after considering the objections raised by the petitioners. “Therefore, no interference is called for.” It said the petitions were found to be “meritless and deserve to be dismissed”.

The bench noted that the issue involves several disputed questions, including the petitioner’s standing to file the writ petition. “On that count as well, this Court is not required to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, keeping in mind the larger public interest.”

The court said “it is a hard reality” that the population has increased, but the Ujjain Municipal Corporation is empowered to take necessary actions.

“The Corporation has already taken all necessary actions available under the law while strictly observing the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the actions of the authorities, including the Corporation and the state, cannot be considered arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, or violative of Articles 14, 25, 26, and 300A of the Constitution of India. Consequently, no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” the court said.

It said that there is no dispute that the property in question is a religious site and has existed for many years. “There is also no dispute regarding the fact that, on the same road, portions of the construction of ten temples and one mosque have already been removed,” the court said. It noted that Ujjain authorities have taken action against the construction of 80 religious places in total; therefore, it cannot be said that UMC is acting in an arbitrary manner in violation of Article 14.