Muslim bodies raise due process questions over Saharanpur mosque demolition

The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, two prominent Muslim organisations, have jointly condemned the demolition of a century-old mosque on the Saharanpur Collectorate premises in Uttar Pradesh, describing it as a violation of justice and due process. Their statements come amid ongoing debates over the use of a lower court order that preceded the action.

Mahmood Madani, president of one faction of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, said the demolition raised fundamental questions about the conduct of the administration. He argued that because the land in question lies within the Collectorate premises, the administration and the district magistrate were effectively party to the dispute. “It is a universally recognised principle of law that no party can be a judge in its own cause,” he said.

Echoing similar concerns, Malik Moatasim Khan, vice-president of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, described the demolition as a “brazen and unforgivable act”. He alleged that officials had demonstrated a “biased, bigoted, and communal mindset” and called the episode “a blot on Indian democracy”.

Mr. Madani also pointed to the sequence of events. According to him, the lower court’s order of September 4 did not explicitly direct immediate demolition. Yet, he claimed, the administration carried out the demolition within hours, leaving the affected party no meaningful time to seek legal remedies or even obtain a certified copy of the order. He stressed that a lower court’s decision is not final when appeal provisions exist under the law.

“The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to approach the higher courts for relief,” he said. “When an action can cause irreversible damage, denying the affected party even a reasonable opportunity to seek judicial intervention is deeply troubling.”

Mr. Madani questioned the “extraordinary haste” shown by the authorities. He argued that in cases where consequences are irreversible, the primary duty of officials should be to uphold due process rather than expedite demolition. He urged the mosque committee to approach the High Court without delay and appealed to all sections of society to speak out against what he called “a growing pattern of arbitrary action against mosques and other places of worship”.

Hours before his statement, Arshad Madani, president of another faction of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, raised a broader question about the uniform application of the Constitution. He asked whether the law is being implemented equally for every citizen and every religion. “If the Constitution guarantees equality, freedom of religion, and equal protection of the law to all, then why is such a double standard being witnessed in its practical implementation?” he said.

The demolition took place on the premises of the Saharanpur district collectorate, where the mosque reportedly stood for over a century. The action followed a legal dispute over the land, which had been the subject of litigation. Officials have not yet issued a detailed public response to the allegations of haste or bias, and the matter has now become the focus of legal scrutiny and public debate.

Journalists could not independently verify the organisations’ account of the court order’s contents. However, legal experts note that even in cases involving disputed property, procedural norms generally require authorities to allow parties reasonable time to appeal, especially when the structure being removed is of religious and historical significance.

The developments have drawn attention to broader concerns about the protection of places of worship and the interplay between court orders, administrative action, and community rights. Religious leaders and civil society members have called for a transparent inquiry into the sequence of events leading up to the demolition, as well as for clear guidelines to prevent similar situations in the future.