In a significant development concerning religious properties and judicial procedure, the Supreme Court of India recently refused to entertain a petition aimed at stopping Hindu prayers (Pujas) at the Aland Dargah in Karnataka. The court’s decision underscores a fundamental rule of the Indian legal system: you cannot jump directly to the Supreme Court for every local dispute if the High Court is already handling the matter.
The case involves the Hazrath Malikul Mashaikh Makdoom Ladle Ansari Dargah in Aland, Kalaburagi. While the petitioners argued that allowing "ad-hoc" (temporary) prayers for Maha Shivratri violates the sanctity of the Waqf property, the Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, made it clear that Article 32 of the Constitution was not designed to bypass regular legal channels.
The Aland Dargah has been a site of communal sensitivity for several years. On one side, the Dargah Managing Committee maintains that the entire premises is a notified Waqf property, containing the grave of Hazrath Mardan-e-Gaib. They point to records dating back to 1968 and a 1976 statutory notification to prove its Islamic character.
On the other side, certain groups claim that the site also houses the 'Samadhi' of Saint Raghav Chaitannya. Since 2022, there have been repeated attempts and legal applications to perform "cleansing rituals" and Pujas at the site, particularly during the festival of Maha Shivratri.
The petitioners, led by Khaleel Ansari (Secretary of the Dargah Committee), approached the Supreme Court seeking a "writ of mandamus" to protect the Waqf character of the shrine and to restrain the Karnataka High Court from passing any further interim orders that allow Hindu rituals on the premises.
The hearing in the Supreme Court was a masterclass in constitutional boundaries. Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, appearing for the Dargah committee, argued that the religious character of the property was being changed "through a thousand cuts." She argued that every time a new "ad-hoc" order is passed by the High Court for a festival, it chips away at the finality of the Waqf status.
However, Justice Dipankar Datta was unconvinced about using Article 32 for this purpose. Article 32 allows citizens to move the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Justice Datta remarked:
"Article 32 was not designed for this... that some orders are passed in Karnataka High Court and you come here. Unless it is a pan-India issue, we cannot entertain this. If the High Court dismisses your petition, you are most welcome to come here in appeal."
The Court's logic was simple: If a High Court passes an order you don't like, the proper remedy is to file a "Special Leave Petition" (SLP) against that specific order, rather than filing a fresh writ petition to "restrain" the High Court from doing its job.
One of the strongest points raised by the petitioners was the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This law prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and requires that its religious character as it existed on August 15, 1947, be maintained.
The petitioners argued that by allowing Shivalinga Pujas and "Aland Chalo" yatras, the authorities and the lower courts were effectively changing the character of a 600-year-old Dargah. They claimed this was a direct violation of the 1991 Act and cited a December 2024 Supreme Court order that barred courts from entertaining new petitions questioning the religious character of established properties.
Despite these arguments, the Bench maintained that these points should be raised during the ongoing appeals in the Karnataka High Court or the Waqf Tribunal, rather than starting a parallel proceeding in the Supreme Court.