The famous Hidaya Masjid and Madrasah in Koyambed, Chennai should be demolished. The Supreme Court also upheld the High Court verdict that the madrassa and mosque should be demolished. A place of worship and a madrasa were being encroached on the public land. The Supreme Court of Madras accepted that the madrasas and mosques were built without permission. Upholding the demolition of the famous mosque in Coimbatore, Chennai, the Supreme Court said that illegal religious structures on public land can never be a platform for preaching religion. The Supreme Court added that shifting the mosque to another place and unauthorized encroachment in the name of religion will not be allowed.
The mosque committee had also filed a case against the demolition of the mosque. The court also did not accept the stand that if the church is demolished, more land should be given instead. The view was that why should land be given free to those who have committed mistakes by encroachment of public land and construction. The Supreme Court, headed by Justices Suryakant and KV Viswanathan, underlined the responsibility of the States and High Courts to ensure that such encroachments, be it temples, mosques, mosques or gurudwaras, are removed. The order is under appeal. Senior advocate S Nagamuthudaya appeared for the mosque committee, Muslim Welfare Trust. The Madras High Court had earlier ordered the mosque’s removal.
Nagamuthu argued that the mosque had not created any obstruction to the public and the trust had legally acquired the land. However, the court pointed out that the land is under the jurisdiction of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) and the construction was undertaken without proper permission. Despite receiving a stop-work notice from the local authorities in 2020, the trust went ahead with the construction, prompting the Supreme Court to question the legality of their activities. “We are very clear… be it a temple or a mosque, there should be no illegal construction,” the bench observed.
How can places of worship and religions in particular violate the law? Those who are supposed to uphold morality and set a good example should not do this. Ultimately, the court upheld the decision of the Madras High Court, confirming that the petitioner had no legal claim to the land and proceeded with the construction illegally.
The verdict is in line with previous directions issued by the Supreme Court between 2009 and 2018, aimed at curbing the proliferation of illegal religious structures on public land. States and Union Territories have been directed to assess existing constructions on a case-by-case basis and take appropriate action.
Justice J Nisha Banu of the Madras High Court in his judgment clearly says that the mosque should be demolished and replaced. But the officials remained reticent. In the judgement, the officials disagreed with the indifference shown in the matter. The defendants were repeatedly warned to ensure that constructions are not carried out without proper planning permission. Despite the repeated orders of the court, the officials gave permission for illegal constructions or gave silent consent.
The Supreme Court observed that Haida Muslim Welfare Trust (petitioner) was not the owner of the property. The petitioner is an illegal resident. The petitioner has never applied for permission for building plans; the construction has been raised completely illegally;
