A reported eviction notice and demolition order involving the Race Course Mosque in New Delhi has triggered a demand for intervention from Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju, with AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi alleging that Delhi’s waqf administration failed to protect the property. The existence and terms of the notice and order could not be independently established from the material supplied for this report.
Owaisi said the matter required urgent intervention from Rijiju, arguing that the Union minister should help resolve the dispute because the Delhi Waqf Board has not been constituted since 2023. He also alleged that the board’s chief executive officer could have intervened but did not do so.
In a post on X cited by Deccan Chronicle, Owaisi said the mosque had been a gazetted waqf property since 1977. He alleged that the waqf board neither challenged the demolition order nor made efforts to resolve the issue.
The dispute places the administrative status of the property at the centre of the matter. A gazetted waqf property is recorded as an endowment for religious or charitable purposes, while the management and protection of such property depend on the functioning of the relevant waqf administration and applicable law. The supplied report does not identify the authority that issued the alleged notice or demolition order, the stated grounds for the action, or the land agency responsible for enforcement.
Owaisi further argued that the Waqf Amendment Act protects the mosque because it is a “waqf by user”, and said properties registered in the past continue to receive protection under the law. These are claims made in his public statement; the report does not provide the text of the legislation, the property’s registration documents or an official legal interpretation of how the provisions apply to the mosque.
The case highlights a broader governance question for Delhi: how established religious and community properties are documented, administered and defended when land-use or demolition action is initiated. It also points to the consequences of institutional vacancies, since the absence of a constituted board may affect the ability of a property-management authority to respond to notices, pursue legal remedies or negotiate with other government agencies.
At present, the available account does not establish whether demolition work has begun, whether the notice remains active, or whether any court or government authority has issued a stay or clarification. The relevant Delhi authorities and the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs would need to confirm the status of the property, the alleged notice and the administrative response before the central claims can be treated as established facts.
