The ruling in brief
On 29 October 2026 the Delhi High Court declined to order the Centre to reopen the Race Course masjid for prayers, saying it could not force the government to grant access while demolition was under way around the mosque. In return, the Centre committed on record not to demolish the mosque until it decides the Delhi Waqf Board’s representation, which it said would happen within four weeks. The case returns on 16 December 2026.
| Question | Answer as of 29 Oct 2026 |
| Case | Syed Ahmed Saud v. Delhi Waqf Board and Others, Delhi High Court |
| Judge | Justice Anish Dayal (single bench) |
| Petitioner | Syed Ahmed Saud, a worshipper at the mosque, through advocate M. Sufian Siddiqui |
| Main respondents | Union of India via the Land and Development Office (L&DO), Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs; Delhi Waqf Board |
| Relief sought | Restore entry and exit for worshippers; protect the mosque from demolition |
| Prayers allowed? | No. The court called the Centre’s safety objection fair and refused to compel access |
| Demolition? | Not for now. The Centre said no coercive action until the Waqf Board’s representation is decided, within four weeks |
| Directions | Statements of both counsel recorded; Centre to file a status report |
| Next hearing | 16 December 2026 |
The headline’s “Race Court” is Bar and Bench’s spelling; every other report and the court record refer to the Race Course masjid.
The mosque and the land around it
The Race Course masjid is a small, notified Waqf mosque that now sits alone inside the 53-acre Race Course compound the Centre has cleared next to the Prime Minister’s residence at 7, Lok Kalyan Marg. Everything around it, the Delhi Race Club, the Jaipur Polo Ground and roughly 700 slum households, has been taken over or demolished in 2026.
Why the land was cleared. The L&DO served eviction notices on the Race Club and the Indian Polo Association on 12 March 2026, saying the land was needed for a public purpose. In court the Centre has described that purpose as public interest including a defence installation, and has cited national security. Slum residents were told their camps sat in a protected zone next to an operational Air Force station.
What was cleared. The Centre took the 15.20-acre Jaipur Polo Ground on 13 June and resumed 53.242 acres of the Race Club on 27 August, handing it to the CPWD. Families from BR Camp, Masjid Camp and DID Camp were moved to flats in Savda Ghevra, roughly 45 to 50 km away; residents told The Quint fewer than 60% actually live there. A temple on the same site is also closed to visitors, the Centre told the court.
What each side argued
The dispute turned on one practical question: with demolition finished or nearly finished around the mosque, is it still unsafe to let worshippers in? The petitioner said photographs taken on 29 October showed nothing left to demolish; the Centre said access was still unsafe and also challenged the petitioner’s standing.
| Issue | Petitioner (Syed Ahmed Saud) | Centre / L&DO (CGSC Ashish Dixit) | Delhi Waqf Board |
| Access for prayers | Barred without notice or order; violates Articles 14 and 25. Denied entry at new iron gates on 21 Oct | Unsafe while demolition continues nearby; the temple on site is also closed | Wrote to L&DO on 19 Oct seeking protection and restored utilities |
| Demolition threat | L&DO official with police said on 17 Oct the mosque would go in 2 to 4 days; mosque was not on the encroachment list | No immediate plan; no coercive action until the representation is decided, within four weeks | Representation pending with L&DO and other authorities |
| Heritage | Grade-II status means any change needs the Heritage Conservation Committee’s approval | Not addressed in reports of the hearing | Seeks protection of mosque and graveyard |
| Religious character | State cannot ignore its historic religious character when taking steps that could end its existence | Not addressed in reports of the hearing | Claims protection under the Places of Worship Act, 1991 (per The Quint) |
| Utilities | Cut on 7 Oct during the jhuggi clearance | Cut to protect the public during demolition of other structures | Says dues were paid and no notice was given |
| Standing | A regular worshipper whose right to pray is affected | Individual worshippers’ pleas would open a Pandora’s box | Accused by the petitioner of abdicating its duty |
How the court reasoned
The court treated this as an interim safety question, not a ruling on the right to pray. It accepted the Centre’s offer to hold off demolition as fair, and reasoned that if a worshipper were hurt during demolition, someone would have to answer for compensation. It also told the petitioner that his real aim was protecting the monument, which the Centre’s undertaking already covers for now.
This is the second time in two weeks the High Court has declined interim relief at this mosque. The two orders rest on different grounds:
| Imam’s utilities plea | Worshipper’s access plea | |
| Judge | Justice Saurabh Banerjee | Justice Anish Dayal |
| Filed / decided | Filed 12 Oct; dismissed 15 Oct | Notice 27 Oct; interim access refused 29 Oct |
| Relief sought | Restore power and water | Restore entry; stop demolition |
| Outcome | Dismissed | Access refused; demolition held off by the Centre’s undertaking; case pending |
| Key reasoning | Waqf Board, the original occupant, had not challenged the cut; the imam had no personal right to the premises; title and scope of the 25 Aug judgment were disputed facts beyond a writ | Safety during demolition; government’s offer to decide the Waqf representation within four weeks was fair |
The legal frame. Article 25 protects the freedom to practise religion but makes it subject to public order, morality and health, which is the space a safety-based restriction occupies. The petitioner’s Article 14 claim is about arbitrariness: access was cut with no written order. The court has not ruled on either; it has only declined to grant access at the interim stage.
The standing question. Both rulings circle the same gap. In the imam’s case the court noted that the Waqf Board, as owner, had not come to court. In this case the Centre argued individual worshippers should not be able to sue. The Waqf Board has so far acted only by letter, on 8 October to the NDMC and on 19 October to the L&DO, and has no elected body.
Open questions the court has not yet reached: whether the Grade-II listing requires Heritage Conservation Committee approval before any demolition; whether the 25 August eviction judgment covers the mosque, as the NDMC said orally; and whether the Places of Worship Act, 1991 applies to removal of a mosque, as opposed to conversion of its character.
Wider context
The mosque case is the last piece of a year-long L&DO drive to take back large leased parcels in Lutyens’ Delhi, and it follows earlier Delhi fights over Waqf-listed heritage mosques where courts mostly deferred to official processes.
The 2026 Lutyensland drive
Earlier Delhi mosque disputes
| Mosque | Year | Grade / status | Ground cited by authorities | What happened in court |
| Sunehri Bagh Masjid, near Udyog Bhawan | 2023 to 2024 | Grade-III heritage, about 150 years old | Traffic flow at the roundabout (Delhi Traffic Police reference) | Waqf Board’s plea closed in Dec 2023 with parties told to act per law; NDMC then sought public objections and referred removal to the Heritage Conservation Committee; imam’s plea and a PIL followed ( |
| Akhoondji mosque, Mehrauli | 2024 | Described as about 600 years old | Illegal structure on DDA land | Razed on 30 Jan 2024 along with a madrasa, graveyard and shrine |
Two patterns repeat across these cases: courts question whether an imam or worshipper, rather than the Waqf Board, can sue; and they tend to accept an official undertaking that a process (the Heritage Conservation Committee, or here the Waqf representation) will run first, instead of granting a stay outright.
