Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with the Gujarat High Court's order declining to grant a four-week stay to the Mansa Masjid Trust against the proposed partial demolition near a 400-year-old mosque in Ahmedabad for a road-widening project.

The Court observed in its order, “In view of the categorical stand taken by the authorities in the pleadings before the High Court and also in light of the position recorded by the division bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment that a portion of the mosque comprising some open land is being demolished due to the widening of the road, and that “the main structure of the mosque is not being demolished”, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, especially when a temple, commercial properties and residential properties of persons affected have also been included for demolition for the purpose of road widening.”

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, kept open the question of whether the property is waqf property and if the Waqf Board is entitled to compensation.

The Court was hearing the Trust's appeal against the High Court order, which had cleared the way for demolition of a portion of the mosque premises to widen the road leading towards Sabarmati railway station.

The Gujarat High Court on October 3, 2025 had refused to restrain the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation from carrying out partial demolition near the mosque, situated in Saraspur. It had noted that the procedure under Sections 210 to 213 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 had been followed and that other religious, residential and commercial properties were also affected by the project undertaken in public interest.

Today, Advocate Warisha Farasat for the Trust contended that the claim that the mosque would remain unaffected was incorrect. She highlighted that it was a 400 year old mosque.

Justice Surya Kant remarked that the widening of the road was a “bona fide public interest for the benefit of entire city”.

He highlighted, “The mosque is completely intact and they have also dismantled a temple also. They have dismantled commercial places also. For this very road, one temple, one commercial property, some residential houses – for those persons there would be extreme hardship. But all these things had to be taken only for the widening of this road. Because roads in the oldest cities of our country…”

The State submitted that it was incorrect to claim that the Trust had not been consulted, stating that its representatives had appeared before the municipal corporation.

Farasat urged the bench to preserve the mosque structure. She that since it was a 400-year-old structure, the prayer hall should be spared.

Justice Kant pointed out that the mosque was not being touched. “One temple has been demolished, one commercial property has been demolished, some residential housing has been taken over and mind you without payment of compensation. But in your case, the mosque is untouched. Only an open space with a platform.”

Justice Kant noted that for compensation, the Waqf Board would have to establish its entitlement, and if entitled to compensation, it would receive it.

Case :MANCHA MASJID Vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT |SLP(C) No. 30200/2025