The Supreme Court on Monday made pointed observations while hearing a plea opposing the demolition of a madarsa structure situated in a slum redevelopment area along the Mehrauli–Badarpur Road, questioning the bona fides of the litigation and flagging attempts to derail the redevelopment process.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant noted that it was aware of “at whose behest” such petitions were being filed and remarked that only one person appeared intent on stalling the project, despite substantial consent from slum dwellers. The Bench emphasised that redevelopment could not be obstructed under the guise of litigation, particularly when it impacted the fundamental right to education of children from economically weaker sections.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing against the demolition, submitted that a plea concerning the status of the structure was pending before the Waqf Tribunal and argued that demolition should not proceed until the tribunal determined the nature of the property. She opposed the demolition of what was described as a Masjid and Madarsa, urging restraint until adjudication.

The CJI, however, questioned the shifting description of the structure, observing that until recently it had only been referred to as a madarsa, and not a masjid. The Bench noted that land had been specifically allotted for running a madarsa and not for a mosque, and that the terminology of “masjid” appeared to have been introduced subsequently, allegedly at the instance of builders.

“If it were a historical structure, we could have considered protecting it,” the CJI observed, adding that the Court could not extend similar protection to an illegal structure in a slum area. The Bench further noted that additional land had already been granted for the purpose of running a madarsa, and questioned why, despite this, redevelopment was being stalled by litigation.

Highlighting the broader public interest, the Court remarked that poor children should not be deprived of access to education due to individual objections. The Bench also took note of multiple petitions being filed by different individuals, some of which had earlier been dismissed, reinforcing its concern about motivated litigation.

The Court clarified that issues relating to the nature of the property could be determined by the Waqf Tribunal but made it clear that redevelopment could not be indefinitely stalled on that basis.

The matter remains under consideration.