Sun Feb 15 05:46:14 UTC 2026: ### Delhi High Court Hears Waqf Board Petition on Qutub Minar Mosque Namaz Ban

The Story:

The Delhi High Court has directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to reconsider a representation by the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) regarding the stoppage of namaz (prayers) at a Mughal-era mosque within the Qutub Minar complex. This directive follows a Supreme Court request in April 2023 urging the High Court to expedite its decision on the DWB‘s petition, which was initially filed in 2022. The DWB seeks to overturn the ASI‘s decision to halt namaz, which was reportedly implemented on May 13, 2022.

The legal battle revolves around the DWB‘s claim that the mosque is a notified waqf property and does not fall within the protected area of the Qutub Minar complex, a centrally-protected and UNESCO World Heritage site. The Centre, through the Ministry of Culture and ASI, contends that the Qutub Minar is not a place of worship and has not been used as such since it came under protection.

Key Points:

  • The Delhi High Court has instructed the ASI to consider the DWB‘s representation regarding the ban on namaz at the Mughal mosque.
  • The ASI reportedly stopped namaz on May 13, 2022.
  • The DWB argues that the mosque is a waqf property and not part of the protected monument.
  • The Centre maintains that the Qutub Minar is not a place of worship and the mosque is a protected monument.
  • A civil court rejected a suit seeking restoration of Hindu and Jain deities inside Quwwat Ul-Islam mosque in 2021, with an appeal pending.

Key Takeaways:

  • This case highlights the ongoing tensions between religious practices and heritage preservation in India.
  • The legal proceedings underscore the complexities of managing historical sites with diverse religious significance.
  • The court’s direction to the ASI indicates a need for a more thorough examination of the DWB‘s claims.
  • The outcome of this case could set a precedent for similar disputes involving religious practices at protected historical sites.
  • The case reflects a broader debate about the historical narrative and ownership of cultural landmarks.

    Read More

Related News: