The Supreme Court of India on Friday declined to intervene in the long-running dispute over the demolition of Ujjain’s 200-year-old Takiya Masjid, effectively upholding the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s earlier decision that had validated the state government’s action. The apex court dismissed, at the very outset, a petition filed by worshippers who had sought both judicial scrutiny of the demolition and an order directing reconstruction of the mosque. With this ruling, the demolition remains legally undisturbed, and the petitioners have been directed to pursue whatever remedies remain available to them under existing laws.

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. After a brief hearing, the bench concluded that it found “no infirmity” in the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s rulings on the issue. The court noted that while the petitioners were at liberty to seek compensation or other remedies, the factual and legal questions surrounding the demolition had already been comprehensively addressed by the High Court. “The high court has given sound reasoning that compensation shall be paid, if warranted. There is nothing in it. You have your remedies under the law,” the bench remarked, dismissing the plea at the threshold.

Senior advocate M. R. Shamshad, appearing for the petitioners, urged the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that this was a case demanding immediate judicial scrutiny. He contended that the Takiya Masjid had been demolished under the guise of expanding a parking facility adjoining the Mahakaleshwar Temple, part of the Mahakal Lok redevelopment project. Shamshad argued that the demolition violated constitutional protections as well as statutory safeguards applicable to religious sites, particularly those notified as waqf properties. According to him, the mosque had been duly registered as a waqf property in 1985 and had served continuously as a functioning place of worship until it was razed in January.

Central to the petitioners’ arguments was the claim that their fundamental right to freely practise their religion had been infringed. Shamshad challenged the High Court’s finding that the right to practise a religion does not attach to any specific physical structure, calling that reasoning untenable in the context of a registered waqf property used for generations as a mosque. He also told the court that statutory requirements relating to land acquisition and compensation had been flagrantly disregarded, asserting that compensation was improperly disbursed to encroachers instead of legitimate beneficiaries, thereby creating what he alleged was a “false case of acquisition.”

However, the Supreme Court bench refused to reopen either the legal or factual questions. The justices appeared persuaded by the High Court’s detailed analysis, which had dismissed similar arguments earlier. The apex court’s decision not to revisit the High Court’s findings meant that the petitioners’ attempt to challenge the demolition on constitutional, statutory, and procedural grounds effectively came to an end.

The petition before the Supreme Court had been filed by 13 residents of Ujjain who had long offered namaz at the mosque and who maintained that the demolition was carried out in violation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Waqf Act, and the provisions of land acquisition laws governing compensation and rehabilitation. They contended that the authorities acted illegally and arbitrarily, ignoring both the mosque’s formal waqf status and its function as a living place of worship.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, however, had rejected these claims across multiple orders. In its view, the mosque and the land on which it stood had been validly acquired for the Mahakal Lok redevelopment initiative—a major project centred around the Mahakaleshwar Temple, one of the twelve Jyotirlingas and an important pilgrimage destination. The High Court noted that the acquisition was lawful, that compensation had been duly assessed and distributed by the land acquisition officer, and that those who were entitled had been properly compensated.

In reaching its conclusions, the High Court relied upon settled judicial precedent regarding Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to practise and propagate religion. The court held that the right to practise one’s religion is not inherently tied to any particular place of worship, and that acquisition of property used for religious purposes does not violate Article 25 so long as the essence of religious freedom remains intact. According to the High Court, the state’s action did not extinguish the petitioners’ ability to worship or practise their faith; it only affected the status of one specific property.

The High Court also dismissed the allegation that encroachers had improperly received compensation, finding no basis to conclude that the acquisition process had been manipulated or engineered to justify demolition. It concluded that the mosque’s removal was legally permissible under the framework of the redevelopment project and that the state had complied with the necessary statutory requirements.

The Supreme Court’s brief order on Friday aligned squarely with this reasoning. Although the petitioners had hoped the apex court would scrutinise the demolition in light of the site’s religious significance and its historical status, the court opted to refrain from engaging with the underlying factual disputes or revisiting the acquisition process. Instead, it confined itself to clarifying that the petitioners retained the right to seek compensation or invoke remedies provided under relevant statutes, including provisions under the land acquisition law and the Waqf Act. But for now, the demolition stands.

The debate over the Takiya Masjid demolition has been deeply intertwined with the Mahakal Lok project, a major redevelopment effort aimed at upgrading infrastructure, access, and facilities around the Mahakaleshwar Temple. The expansion of parking facilities, widening of adjoining roads, and creation of pedestrian-friendly corridors were among the key objectives of the project. State authorities had argued that the land on which the Takiya Masjid stood was essential for executing the expansion and for managing the heavy influx of pilgrims visiting the temple annually.

For the petitioners, the demolition is emblematic of a deeper issue regarding the protection of minority religious sites, especially those registered under statutory frameworks such as the Waqf Act. They maintain that allowing the demolition to stand could set a troubling precedent. However, with the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere, their immediate legal avenues now lie in claims for compensation or procedural challenges before lower authorities.

As the site continues to be integrated into the broader Mahakal Lok redevelopment plan, the judgement signifies a decisive moment. The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the legal weight of state acquisition powers when balanced against competing claims over religious properties, and it leaves the petitioners with limited but still available routes for redress. For now, the Takiya Masjid remains part of history, its grounds absorbed into the expanding precinct surrounding one of India’s most prominent pilgrimage centres.