In a resounding victory for civic activists reclaiming public land, the Delhi High Court dismissed a retaliatory PIL filed by Mohammad Kamran against Preet Singh, Sanjeev Newar, Sewa Nyaya Utthan Foundation, and Rashtra Jyoti. The court unequivocally ruled: “No encroachments can be permitted around any religious structure, on govt land, or public land.” The survey confirming illegal mosque committee encroachment at Turkman Gate-Ramlila Maidan has been public for months.
The Real Story: Activists Freed Public Land, Islamists Cry Victim
Kamran’s PIL, filed post-January demolition of Faiz-e-Elahi mosque encroachments (road, footpath, baraat ghar, parking, diagnostic centre), accused activists of “misusing PILs to target Muslim sites” for “communal ends.” Reality: MCD acted on court orders after activists’ documentation exposed massive illegal occupation. No violence from activists, yet 5 rioters (stone-pelting, injuring police) denied bail.
Swati Goel Sharma, activist, shared on her social media handle that the court told the petitioner: “No encroachments can be permitted around any religions structure, on govt land, and land belonging to public….The survey report [official confirmation of encroachment) has been in the public domain since long…”
Mohd Kamran had moved Delhi high court seeking action against us (@joinsif, @SanjeevSanskrit, me, @sewanyaya, @RashtraJyoti) for our work in getting public land free of illegal encroachment by mosque committee at Turkman Gate-Ramlila Maidan
Court dismissed the petition
And told… pic.twitter.com/XcOCwBcfql
— Swati Goel Sharma (@swati_gs) February 16, 2026
Media’s Sinister Spin: “HC Raps Hindutva NGO”
Islamist outlets like Times of India, Maktoob Media, Muslim Network TV twisted oral remarks on Save India Foundation (one of the defendants) into “HC raps Hindutva group targeting mosques,” ignoring dismissal and core ruling: Encroachments illegal regardless of religion.
The Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the petition settles the matter on first principles: public land cannot be encroached upon — not in the name of religion, sentiment, or political convenience. The court’s categorical observation that “no encroachments can be permitted around any religious structure, on government land, or public land” leaves little room for selective outrage.
Yet, parts of the mainstream media chose to spotlight stray oral remarks while downplaying the dismissal itself and the central legal finding on illegal occupation. By reducing a land-use enforcement issue to a communal flashpoint, sections of the press once again framed activism against encroachment as ideological targeting rather than civic intervention.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
