MP High Court Permits Part-Demolition Of Ujjain Shahi Masjid Near Mahakal Temple For Road Widening Ahead Of Simhastha Kumbh

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed two writ petitions challenging notices issued by the Ujjain Municipal Corporation for removal of a portion of the Shahi Masjid to facilitate a road widening project ahead of the Simhastha Kumbh, a sacred Hindu pilgrimage and mass gathering. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 363]

The bench of Justice Sandeep N Bhatt held that the proposed actions of the Corporation was taken in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and after providing opportunity of hearing to the persons administering the mosque. The court found no violation of Articles 14, 25, 26, or 300A of the Constitution. 

The court also took note of the upcoming Simhastha Kumbh in 2028, the expected movement of crores of devotees, the need for traffic management, and the location of Shahi Masjid being almost opposite to Mahakaleshwar Temple and near the Kshipra River. 

Thus, the bench held:

"Therefore, considering the upcoming event of the Simhastha Kumbh, 2028, whereby the expectations of crores of devotees are required to be kept in mind, as well as the need to provide better facilities and to manage the traffic of such events; and considering the situation of the premises in question, which is almost opposite to the Mahakaleshwar Temple and very near to the Kshipra River; and for the consideration of the larger public safety and larger public interest, the action taken by the respondent is found to be after following the necessary provisions of law". 

The petitions were filed by two sets of persons claiming to be administering the Masjid, which is registered as waqf property. They challenged the demolition notice issued by the Corporation proposing to remove a portion of the Masjid for widening of the road to 15 meters.

Per the petitioners, the proposed demolition would affect part of the prayer hall (jamat Khana), a 120-foot-tall minaret, and Mazhar Chouk Shahi, which would violate their fundamental rights. It was argued that the Mosque is an ancient structure and that its prayer hall, Wazoo facility, and minaret constitute important religious infrastructure. 

The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court decision concerning the protection of religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution and argued that the road widening project, although in the public interest, cannot override the community's right to practise its religion at the centuries-old place of worship. 

The petitioners further contended that the Corporation had failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Sections 322 and 323 of the MP Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which regulates the public street, obstructions, and unauthorised digging or breaking of pavements. Further, it was argued that the MP Waqf Board was not properly served. 

The petitioners allegedly claimed that alternative land was available, which could be used for road widening without disturbing the Mosque. 

The counsel for the Municipal Corporation argued that the road widening project was undertaken per the Ujjain Development Plan of 2035. The said widening was necessary to facilitate the smooth movement of traffic and prevent congestion during Shahi Sawari, Peshwai and the forthcoming Simhastha, 2028. 

The Corporation also disputed the allegation of discriminatory treatment. It informed the court that around 90 religious structures across Ujjain were being shifted or removed as part of the road widening project; 10 temples and one mosque were already removed. 

The Corporation argued that only a small portion of Shahi Masjid was required to be removed and that the affected portion is less than 10% of the total structure. It was also submitted that objections were considered. 

Noting that the Corporation has taken action against about 80 religious places, the bench held that "it cannot be said that the respondent Corporation is acting in an arbitrary manner or in violation of Article 14 Article 14 of the Constitution of India". 

Examining the material on record, the court noted that the Masjid administration was granted an opportunity of hearing, and the impugned order was passed only after hearing them. The court noted, 

"that in a certain situation where the authority, out of the other available options, preserves any property or saves historical or religious property, looking to the photographs and factual scenario in the present matter, it cannot be said that the respondent authority is taking any action in an unfair and biased manner which violates Articles 14, 25, 26, or 300-A". 

Thus, the bench dismissed the petitions. 

Case Title: Shahi Masjid Waqf Panchayat Mochiyaan v State of MP, WP-37128-2026, WP 37128 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 363

For Petitioners: Advocates Jagdish Baheti, Aaditya Dubey, Prabuddha Singh, and Syed Ashhar Ali Warsi

For State: Deputy Advocate General Shrey Raj Saxena with Advocate Sonal Gupta

For Corporation: Advocate Rishi Tiwari

Click here to read/download the Order