Supreme Court Upholds Partial Demolition of 400-Year-Old Mancha Masjid for Road Widening: Balancing Heritage, Religion, and Public Interest

Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision

The Supreme Court of India upheld the Gujarat High Court’s decision permitting the partial demolition of the 400-year-old Mancha Masjid in Ahmedabad to facilitate a road-widening project. The Court emphasized that the move was driven by public interest and not a violation of religious freedom under the Constitution.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi clarified that the main mosque structure will remain intact, with only a portion of the vacant land and platform being affected. The Court further noted that the development plan included similar demolitions of a temple, a commercial building, and a residential house, indicating that the action was not discriminatory or targeted.

---

Religious Rights vs. Property Rights

The Supreme Court categorically stated that Article 25 of the Constitution — which guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion — does not apply in this case. Instead, the dispute concerns property rights and the question of compensation for land acquired in the public interest.

The bench observed:

“Article 25 (right to practice and profess religion) is not attracted in this case. It is the property rights that get attracted. A bona fide public interest which is beneficial to the entire city is beyond any doubt.”

This distinction reiterates that religious freedom does not exempt property from acquisition for a legitimate public purpose, provided due process and compensation are ensured.

---

Petitioner’s Arguments and the Court’s Response

Advocate Warisha Farasat, representing the Mancha Masjid Trust, argued that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation’s (AMC) demolition order was arbitrary and failed to establish genuine public interest. She contended that the property was a protected waqf property under the Waqf Act, 1995, and that an earlier order of the Gujarat High Court had not been adequately considered.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed these claims, noting that:

• The mosque building itself was not being demolished.

• Other religious and private properties were also affected by the same project.

• The issue at hand was compensation, not religious persecution.

The Court remarked:

“You cannot say it is the only mosque where you can perform namaz.”

It also clarified that the status of the property as waqf could be examined separately during compensation proceedings.

---

Legal and Constitutional Framework

1. Constitutional Provisions Involved

• Article 25 – Guarantees freedom of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The Court clarified that this right does not extend to property ownership.

• Article 300A – Protects the right to property as a constitutional legal right, allowing the State to acquire property for a public purpose with just compensation.

• Article 19(1)(g) – Ensures the right to practice any profession or business, which may be reasonably restricted in the public interest.

• Article 14 – Ensures equality before the law, prohibiting arbitrary state action. The Court found no discrimination in this case, as demolition orders applied equally to different properties, including a temple and private establishments.

---

Relevant Statutes

• Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations (GPMC) Act, 1949
  Grants municipal authorities powers to acquire and clear land for urban development, including road widening and infrastructure projects.

• Waqf Act, 1995
  Provides for the protection and management of waqf properties. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Waqf Act does not override special statutory powers granted under the GPMC Act when actions are taken for public benefit.

• Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR)
  Ensures fair compensation and rehabilitation for affected parties when land is acquired for public use.

---

Judicial Precedents Cited

1. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994)
   The Supreme Court held that a mosque is not an essential part of Islam for offering prayers, which can be performed anywhere. Hence, acquisition of mosque land does not inherently violate Article 25.

2. State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose (1954)
   Established that property can be acquired in public interest, provided it meets constitutional requirements of due process and compensation.

3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004)
   Recognized that public safety and infrastructure development are legitimate grounds for state intervention, even when private or religious property is involved.

4. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2002)
   Reinforced the public trust doctrine, affirming that the State has a duty to balance individual rights and collective welfare.

---

Gujarat High Court’s Findings

The Gujarat High Court, in its earlier judgment, had ruled that the AMC acted within its legal powers under the GPMC Act. It also clarified that since the demolition was carried out under special statutory powers, the Waqf Act’s procedural protections did not apply.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle of proportionality, noting that the mosque’s core religious structure remains untouched and that no fundamental right was infringed.

---

Conclusion: Public Interest vs. Heritage Preservation

The Supreme Court’s verdict on the Mancha Masjid case reaffirms a balanced constitutional principle — that while heritage and faith must be respected, they cannot stand in the way of legitimate public infrastructure projects undertaken for the greater good.

This judgment reinforces that religious structures are not immune from urban planning regulations, as long as actions are non-discriminatory, lawful, and compensated. The ruling aligns with the constitutional ethos of secularism, equality, and public welfare, setting a precedent for harmonizing development with heritage preservation.

---