A mosque believed to be roughly 400 years old in Ahmedabad’s Sara spur known by the name of “Mancha Masjid’, carries a lot of emotional, religious and cultural sentiments. At present, the city is going through fast transformation. A road-widening project which is part of broadening urban infrastructure, required clearance of some land, which was part of the vacant land of front area of the mosque. The conflict arose due to this portion of land, the argument of religious sentiments being on one side and public interest, urban planning and infrastructure being on the other.
What are the legal aspects so far?
- On 25th of July, 2025, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) issued a notice directing the mosque trust to peacefully vacate a part of Mosque’s front area for road widening under Town planning scheme 11, Bapunagar.
- The notice was challenged by mosque trust with the argument that the mosque was registered under Waqf property and that Waqf Act protections and mosque’s heritage status were safeguarding it from partial demolition.
- In September 2025, Gujarat High Court supported the notice stating that under the GPMC Act (Sections 210-213), the special powers of municipal commissioner could override the Waqf Act protections as the demolition was subjected to essential public infrastructure project.
- The court also upheld the notice because only a part of premises of the mosque was being demolished and not the main structure.
- The Supreme Court on 17th of October, 2025, also refused to interfere with the order of Gujarat High Court. Noting that the prayer hall and main structure of the mosque were not being touched. The court did not approve any intervention, however the question of compensation under the Waqf Law is still open. “In view of the categorical stand taken by the State authorities and the decision of the High Court that only a part of the vacant land and a platform are to be demolished, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment, especially when a temple, a commercial and a residential property have also been earmarked for demolition for road widening,” the Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said in its order.
- The Supreme Court also observed that Article 25 of Indian Constitution, guaranteeing the freedom of religion, was not attacked in this case. “A bona fide public interest, which is beneficial to the entire city, is beyond any doubt,” the court remarked.
- Advocate Warisha Farasat, appearing for the Mancha Masjid Trust, urged the bench to protect the prayer hall, stating it a 400-year-old mosque. The bench saying“They [municipal authorities] have also dismantled a temple, one commercial property, and one residential house, which is an issue of extreme hardship. All this is happening for the betterment of the city,” also assured that the structure of mosque will remain intact.
Why does this case matter?
- The case has become a Religious Heritage vs Infrastructure. It tests how a nation has to balance between the protection of historic religious structures and demands for urban development. If the demolition takes place, sentiments of a community will be hurt while if no demolition doesn’t happen it will be at the cost of social welfare and betterment of all the citizens.
- The mosque trust had argued that the waqf Act protects endowments for religious and charitable use in Islamic law and hence the act should come into play in the case. While, the court countered that in a case of urban planning, municipal laws with special powers can override.
- This case also questions how other religious and historic infrastructures might be treated in future. It will become a reference for planners, judiciary and administration.
- For the street-level believer of Mancha Masjid: the building itself remains, but the “premises” — the open space, portions of the compound — are being remodeled. That space may have been the room for assembly, kids playing, community gatherings. A sense of place and belonging is thus altered.
- For the community: While the prayer hall stays, the trust and its benefactors feel that their religious property is being sacrificed. There is apprehension too: what if successive phases call for more concessions?
- For the city: The gain is apparent — a broader road equals lesser traffic, easier movement for emergency/metro ingress, smoother connectivity, possible translation to improved living and commerce for inhabitants and business in the area.
- For heritage observers: The mosque’s vintage and reconstruction background raises issues of preservation. Supposing only a “part” is given up, how is the heritage interest determined when parts are changed?
To sum up, the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Ahmedabad’s Mancha Masjid emphasizes the fine line that separates heritage from development. The court urged authorities to honor historical and religious feelings while upholding the road-widening project as being in the public interest. The mosque’s main building is still standing, but even a minor loss evokes strong feelings. This instance serves as a reminder that, as cities expand, every move must be guided by sensitivity and communication to prevent progress from jeopardizing cultural identity or faith.
