Race Course Mosque: Police restrictions, demolition fears and unequal assurances amid Delhi evictions

Police barriers and warning boards have become central to the dispute around the Race Course Mosque near the Prime Minister’s residence in New Delhi. In an Instagram report, a journalist describes being stopped from reporting inside the area and alleges that police personnel spoke rudely to her. She also contrasts the uncertainty facing the mosque with an assurance she says a nearby temple priest received: that the temple would not be touched. These allegations deserve examination alongside the documented eviction drive, the mosque’s heritage status, the court proceedings and restrictions on prayers.

What the signs and restrictions establish

The footage shows a Land and Development Office (L&DO) warning describing the site as government property and warning against unauthorised occupation, construction or other illegal activities. A second board, attributed to the New Delhi district police, says Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is in force, prohibiting gatherings of five or more people and demonstrations in the notified area. Independent reporting on 23–24 October also documents police supervision and restrictions on entry, including for journalists and worshippers. The reporter’s particular allegation of rude treatment is her account; the available record does not establish the full exchange or identify individual officers responsible.

Section 163 permits urgent preventive directions in specified circumstances. It does not automatically prohibit every question, all journalism or all religious worship. The legal justification of a particular restriction depends on the actual order, its grounds, duration and implementation. The displayed board does not by itself establish that every person at the site could lawfully be excluded.

The mosque’s heritage and legal position

The mosque and adjoining graveyard were identified as Waqf property in a 1977 Delhi Gazette notification cited by the Delhi Waqf Board. The mosque has also been reported as a Grade II heritage structure on the New Delhi Municipal Council’s 2009 list. Those records are materially relevant, but they do not, without examination of competing land records and applicable proceedings, settle every ownership or possession question.

The mosque’s water and electricity supplies were disconnected around 7 October as removal and demolition activity proceeded nearby. The Delhi Waqf Board asked for restoration and raised concerns about the mosque’s future. Government sources gave a different account of the alleged eviction notice: some reporting quotes officials denying that L&DO had served a notice specifically on the mosque, while other reports cite officials and documents indicating a demand to vacate. The existence, issuer and legal effect of any mosque-specific eviction direction remain contested and should not be conflated with the general warning sign in the reel.

On 15 October, the Delhi High Court declined the imam’s petition for restoration of utilities. The court noted disputes about rights over the premises and whether the mosque was covered by an earlier eviction judgment; it did not finally adjudicate the mosque’s title or order its demolition in that petition. NDMC cited active demolition works and public safety when resisting reconnection.

Homes cleared and access to worship

The surrounding drive concerns settlements near the former Race Course Club area, with reports describing roughly 700 affected households or residents, although the precise count and extent of demolition vary between sources. Authorities say eligible residents were offered relocation at Savda Ghevra; reporting places it a considerable distance from the original neighbourhood. Demolition debris and guarded entry points were observed by visiting journalists. Losing a home, access to work or nearby places of worship can impose serious costs even where an authority has a legal basis to recover public land. The adequacy and accessibility of rehabilitation therefore matter alongside the legality of eviction.

Independent accounts from 23–24 October indicate that some prayers were permitted under close supervision while entry was curtailed at other times. It would therefore be inaccurate to describe prayer as either wholly banned or freely accessible throughout. Restoration of water and power remained a live dispute.

Was the neighbouring temple treated differently?

The reporter says a priest told her police had promised not to remove even a brick of the neighbouring temple. A separate 25 October account quotes the temple priest supporting protection of the mosque as well as the temple. The reported assurance has not been established here through a written official order, and the two places’ precise legal status and exposure to the demolition proceedings have not been independently compared. It would be premature to conclude from this footage alone that a discriminatory demolition decision has been formally made.

Nevertheless, the allegation raises a legitimate, concrete test for the administration: whether comparable religious sites face comparable rules, and whether any difference in access, utility supply or protection rests on a public, legally relevant reason rather than religious identity. That test requires documents and actual implementation, not competing slogans.

Why press access and proportionality matter

Safety and security near sensitive government premises can justify carefully tailored restrictions, especially during demolition works. But an official claim of security cannot alone justify unlimited exclusion. Authorities should be able to identify the specific risk, explain the area and duration of the measure, consider escorted reporting or controlled prayer access where safe, and provide a route to challenge arbitrary treatment. Needlessly humiliating a journalist or blocking reporting without a defensible safety basis would be an abuse of public authority; the specific misconduct alleged in the reel has not independently been proved.

As of 25 October 2026, the clearest supported finding is that people around a heritage and Waqf-notified mosque have faced real disruption from eviction works, utility cuts and controlled entry, with limited prayers continuing. The journalist’s account puts the fairness of police access controls and the comparison with a nearby temple in focus. Whether the mosque will be demolished, whether the alleged unequal assurance was official policy, and whether the individual police exchange amounted to misconduct remain unresolved. A fair response requires written, reviewable reasons, access rules proportionate to actual risks, and equal treatment of affected communities—not speculation about motives.