Amidst a legal dispute over the status of a demolished mosque site in Mehrauli, the Delhi High Court has refused permission for prayers to be held there during Eid-ul-Fitr. The land's status is the subject of an ongoing legal battle, with a court order maintaining the status quo under the jurisdiction of Justice Sachin Dutta.

The bench, headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Printam Singh Arora, concluded that providing interim relief without thoroughly examining the merits of the previous single-judge bench's order would not be suitable. As a result, the court decided to review this request concurrently with the case of the Managing Committee of Delhi Waqf Board v Government of NCT, scheduled for May 7, 2024.

Advocate Shams Khwaja, representing Muntazmia Committee Madrasa Behrul Ulum, likened the current situation to past instances where access to religious sites was granted to devotees before construction commenced, citing examples such as the Ram Mandir land and the Gyanvapi mosque.

He argued that allowing five hours of prayers over three days would not impinge upon anyone's rights and underscored the importance of permitting prayers on such a significant occasion to uphold the religious freedom of Indian Muslims.

This isn't the first instance of such a plea being presented. Earlier, the Delhi High Court had turned down a comparable request from the Managing Committee of the Delhi Waqf Board. They had sought permission for local residents to observe Shab E-Barat on the land where the historic Akhoondji/Akhunji mosque, graveyard, and madrassa were once located.

The demolition of the mosque and Behrul Uloom madrasa by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on January 30 sparked controversy. The DDA asserted that the mosque's construction took place during the Delhi Sultanate period, providing justification for its removal.

Advocate Sham Khwaja, representing the petitioners, emphasized the historical importance of the mosque, alleging that its demolition took place without adequate notice and led to the destruction of the madrasa and graveyard, along with damage to copies of the Quran. However, DDA Standing Counsel Sanjay Katyal disputed these assertions, assuring the court that religious books were securely held by officials and citing the mosque's construction as an encroachment on forest land.

Case Title: Muntazmia Committee Madrasa Behrul Ulum v DDA (LPA-287/2024)