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.

The Aland Dargah has seen a pattern of temporary court orders. In 2024 and 2025, the Karnataka High Court permitted a limited number of individuals (usually around 15) to enter the premises and offer prayers during Maha Shivratri under heavy security.

The Dargah committee calls these "festival-specific applications" a tactic to render their legal victories meaningless. They had previously won a decree from the Waqf Tribunal in June 2024, which declared the property as Waqf and granted a permanent injunction against interference. However, that decree is currently being challenged in higher courts.

The petitioners expressed fear that these "temporary" permissions would eventually become an "annual entitlement," slowly converting the Dargah into a temple space, despite the statutory finality of the Waqf notification.

This case brings forward three very important legal lessons:

Hierarchy of Courts: You cannot use the Supreme Court as a "shortcut" to stop proceedings in a High Court. The judicial system follows a ladder; you must finish the battle in the High Court first.
Article 32 is Sacred but Specific: While Article 32 is the "heart and soul" of the Constitution, it is meant for serious violations of fundamental rights that cannot be addressed elsewhere, or for issues affecting the whole country.
The Places of Worship Act remains a "Shield": While the Supreme Court didn't rule on the merits of the Act in this specific hearing, the Act remains the primary legal defense for any religious structure facing a change in its identity.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw their case. This means the battle now shifts back to the Karnataka High Court. The Aland Dargah case is a reminder of the delicate balance courts must strike between religious sentiments and the strict letter of the law.

As Maha Shivratri approaches, the focus will be on the local administration and the High Court to ensure that "ad-hoc" arrangements do not lead to communal disharmony or a violation of the law of the land. For now, the Supreme Court has signaled that it will trust the High Courts to handle such local disputes unless a significant constitutional error is committed.

Case Details: * Case Title: Khaleel Ansari vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 197/2026
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma