On the intervening night of January 6 and 7, 2026, residents of the area around Faiz-e-Elahi mosque at Turkman Gate, Delhi, protested a demolition drive being carried out by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against alleged encroachments in the area, following a High Court order.
According to a report by the Indian Express, the MCD demolished several structures, including a "baaraat ghar" and a dispensary near a mosque and Dargah, which stand on a 0.195-acre patch of land. The report also said that during this time, the mosque and the dargah remained untouched.
Soon, in response to the demolition, a crowd gathered in opposition to the demolition drive, "threw stones," "broke barricades," and "snatched and damaged a megaphone," The Hindu reported. According to the report, at least five police officers were injured during the clash were taken to the Lok Nayak Hospital.
According to the FIR accessed by The Hindu, constable Sandeep, in his complaint, said police made repeated announcements asking the crowd to disperse, but the group refused. “Police barricading had been put in place, and a crowd of about 30 to 35 people had gathered at Turkman Gate, raising slogans against the police administration,” the FIR read. He stated that the crowd did not stop and “continued to raise slogans, broke barricades and began rioting."
According to The Indian Express, 20 people were arrested in the case. The FIR has been registered under Sections 221 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 132 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), 121 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty), 191 (2) and (3) (rioting), 223(A) (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The police also "suspect the involvement of some outsiders as well," The Indian Express reported.
A member of the Aman committee in Delhi, Shehzad Khan, has also responded to The Hindu, saying that stone pelting caused panic, and residents of the area were not involved in the incident. “We held meetings with locals and decided to pursue legal remedies instead of confrontation,” he told The Hindu.
A Delhi court on 9 January 2026 sent Ubaidullah, Mohammad Naved, and Mohammad Faiz to 12-day judicial custody for their alleged involvement in the violence. The accused were produced before Duty Judicial Magistrate Kartik Taparia of the fast-track court, who remanded them to custody till 21 January 2026. The trio was accused of pelting stones near the mosque during the MCD’s anti-encroachment drive, which turned violent.
On 12 February, a Delhi court heard the final arguments in the case of 12 of the accused. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Bhupinder Singh on 18 February granted bail to 12 accused arrested in connection with the Turkman Gate stone-pelting incident.
The Defence counsels of the accused in many cases alleged that their clients have been assaulted within the jail premises by jail officers. The counsel for three of the accused, Adnan, Mohammad Aadil and Amir Hamza, also said that their clients are residents who happened to be there, and not outsiders joining the protest.
On 25 February, six more accused were granted bail. The bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each with one surety of the same amount. The FIR in the case was registered at Chandni Mahal police station in January.
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Region Classification
Urban
Type of Land
Common
Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
20
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Out on bail
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
Yes
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
BNS section 221 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), BNS 132 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), BNS 121 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty), BNS 191 (rioting), BNS 223(A), BNS (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and BNS 3(5) (joint liability), Section 109 of BNS.
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Section 3 [Mischief causing damage to public property]
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Project stalled due to protests
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Religious/Sacred/Cultural value
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/turkman-gate-case-parties-submit-final-arguments-as-court-reserves-order/articleshow/128271570.cms
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Has the Conflict Ended?
No
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Other, Other
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
No
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Lack of legal protection over land rights
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Pending
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Tis Hazari Court/Courts of Additional Sessions Judges
Case Number
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Arrest/detention/imprisonment
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
Reported Details of the Violation:
On the intervening night of January 6 and 7, 2026, residents of the area around Faiz-e-Elahi mosque at Turkman Gate, Delhi, protested a demolition drive being carried out by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against alleged encroachments in the area, following a high court order. The MCD demolished several structures, including a "baaraat ghar" and a dispensary near a mosque and Dargah, which stand on a 0.195-acre patch of land. Soon, in response to the demolition, a crowd gathered in opposition to the demolition drive, "threw stones," "broke barricades," and "snatched and damaged a megaphone". At least five officers were injured during the clash. According to media reports, 20 people have been arrested. The FIR has been registered under Sections 221 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 132 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), 121 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty), 191 (2) and (3) (rioting), 223(A) (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The police also "suspect the involvement of some outsiders as well.
Date of Violation
January 6, 2026
Location of Violation
Area near Faiz-e-Elahi Masjid, Turkman Gate, near Ramlila Maidan, in Delhi.
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Municipal Corporation of Delhi; Delhi Police; Aman committee
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
20
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Out on bail
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
Yes
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
BNS section 221 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), BNS 132 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), BNS 121 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty), BNS 191 (rioting), BNS 223(A), BNS (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and BNS 3(5) (joint liability), Section 109 of BNS.
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Section 3 [Mischief causing damage to public property]
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
