The Union government has told the Delhi High Court that the century-old Qadeemi Mosque, located inside the Krishi Bhawan complex in central Delhi, must be removed to make way for the Central Vista redevelopment project.
In a status report filed through the Land and Development Office (L&DO) under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the Centre has argued that the mosque stands on government-owned Plot No. 120 on Dr Rajendra Prasad Road and that its removal is necessary for the construction of Common Central Secretariat (CCS) Buildings 4 and 5.
The report also said the construction of Kartavya Bhawan 4 and 5, which will come up on the sites currently occupied by Shastri Bhawan and Krishi Bhawan, has already been awarded to the Central Public Works Department.
Centre says it stands on government land and a permanent religious structure is incompatible with government property, while the committee seeks its retention or an alternative prayer facility. Read more: https://t.co/uBe8bRVdQ1 https://t.co/13jdgJ6WOo
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) November 3, 2026
The Centre’s submission rests on two main pillars. First, it contends that the mosque committee’s occupation of the land is based on a 1940 agreement that granted only “permissive possession” for use as a place of worship, without conferring any ownership, title, or proprietary rights.
Second, it argues that retaining a permanent religious structure within a central government office complex is “impermissible and incompatible with the secular character of Government property,” and that public land in a central administrative zone cannot be encumbered by a permanent religious reservation.
As an alternative prayer facility, the Centre referred to Shahi Masjid Zabta Ganj near India Gate. The status report states that the mosque is located within a two-kilometre radius of Krishi Bhawan and is fully functional, which could be convenient for those in the vicinity looking for a place to offer prayers.
On the constitutional issue, the Government submitted that Article 25 is not violated, since there is no fundamental right to insist on worshipping at a particular location on government land held under a permissive arrangement.
The Centre also rejected the arguments and contentions presented in the petition, stating that they do not align with the official records.
