Lawful at Every Step, Unfair in Sum: The Officer at the Race Course Masjid Gate

Lawful at Every Step, Unfair in Sum

Imagine you are the officer posted at the gate of the Race Course Masjid. Your instructions are clear: a Section 163 BNSS order is in force, the area is close to the Prime Minister's residence, demolitions are under way nearby and access must be controlled.

A man arrives at sunset for the Maghrib prayer. Earlier you let worshippers in for about fifteen minutes at a time. Now your instruction is that entry needs permission from above. He calls it unfair. You turn him away. The easy answer would be that you are simply following lawful orders.

Taken one at a time, each step that brought him to your gate does look lawful:

• The Section 163 order is a recognised power to prevent apprehended danger.
• The utility cut of 7 October came during the demolition of nearby jhuggi clusters and the NDMC cited ongoing demolition and an element of public harm.
• The Delhi High Court declined the imam's plea because he had no legal title to the premises.
• Under Ismail Faruqui (1994), the State can acquire places of worship for public purposes, including security.

The gap between legality and fairness Taken together, the steps add up to something no single order says.

The mosque has no water or electricity. Access is limited and depends on permissions granted from above that worshippers cannot see. Prayers are reportedly held largely in the dark, with a generator and groundwater for ablutions.

Yet officials say no eviction notice has been issued. The mosque is being emptied without anyone formally deciding to empty it. That is the problem with indirect action. It avoids the procedures a direct decision would require: notice, reasons, a hearing and a chance to challenge.

Worshippers are left facing a gate rather than a decision.

What each choice costs Strict enforcement protects a high-security zone near the Prime Minister's residence during demolitions.

It also costs people like the hotel worker and the jhuggi residents relocated about 50 km away to Savda Ghevra, access to a place where some have prayed since childhood. And it erodes trust in the State's fairness. Relaxing access respects worship and dignity. It may also add security risk and it is not the gate officer's decision to make.

The resolution The officer at the gate cannot decide the mosque's future.

But the officer can refuse to let the process stay hidden. That means:

• asking superiors for written access rules, with fixed prayer timings, so worshippers know where they stand; - applying those rules courteously and consistently; - recommending that the administration either issue a formal decision about the mosque, with reasons and notice or restore basic dignity while the decision is pending, in consultation with the Delhi Waqf Board. The cost is friction with superiors who may prefer to leave things vague. That cost is worth bearing.