That a structure in premises of the Delhi High Court which is being used by the members of Muslim community as a mosque as well as for perfrming daily Namaz/ prayers.
It is apparent that the mosque inside the court premises is neither protected nor an ancient monument and has been built and maintain by some members of the Muslim community for offer prayers. It has further become clear that since it is created inside the premises, unfettered and unregulated visit by people can be detrimental to the High Court which has been subjected to attacks on two occasions in the past. It is further important to mention here that this kind of uncontrolled use of High Court’s space can even lead to cropping up of other problems viz. begging and other related evils.
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus issuing necessary directions to the Respondents to demolish the structure which is used by the members of Muslim community to offer prayers;
Issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to ensure that no prayer is offered by any class or community inside the premises of Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court, which was hearing a PIL on the existence of a “ mosque” on its premises, directed the Central government to submit the records of the Land and Development Office (L&DO) after it was informed that the High Court registry did not have a copy of the original land records of the court premises.
The PIL, filed by a member of the Hindu Mahasabha, had raised an objection to the existence of a “mosque” inside the High Court premises on the grounds that a religious structure cannot be permitted on court premises.
The court of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Pratibha Rani issued notice to the Ministry of Urban Development and the L&DO to bring on record the original land records and the layout plan after the Registry officials stated that the High Court administration only had the notification by which the court was granted land.
The notification, incidentally, mentions the existence of a “mosque” in the area but does not specify its precise location.
In his PIL, Mahasabha member Ajay Gautam claimed that the structure near the court’s main entry gate was not an “ancient” or “protected” mosque according to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) records and a religious structure could not be allowed inside a public office of the state.
The “mosque” has been in a controversy since 2013 when the court administration allowed repairs to the damaged walls of the structure.
With increasing number of lawyers and litigants offering prayers at the “mosque”, the PIL had raised the issue of security threats due to unfettered access to the structure which is located near Gate Number 5 of the High Court.