The Supreme Court docket immediately refused to entertain a writ petition looking for to restrain the passing of judicial orders permitting the efficiency of pujas related to Hinduism at Karnataka’s Aland Dargah. The Court docket dismissed the plea as withdrawn, noting that Article 32 of the Structure can’t be invoked on this matter.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma was listening to a writ petition filed by one Khaleel Ansari, who’s acknowledged to be the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Dargah Hazrath Malikul Mashaikh Makdoom Ladle Ansari (Sunni).
Based on the petitioner, though the property was already declared as a Waqf property by the Waqf Tribunal, there was a sample of assorted third events submitting writ petitions and different purposes earlier than the Excessive Court docket looking for permission to conduct pujas on particular events. The Excessive Court docket has handed orders permitting ad-hoc preparations for the efficiency of rituals infrequently, together with the upcoming Shivratri on February 15.
The petitioner argued that such interferences would quantity to altering the non secular character of the property, in violation of the Locations of Worship Act. The petitioner sought a route to guard the Waqf character of dargah and forestall the passing of orders permitting the opposite rituals within the premises.
The petitioner prayed for instructions to stop any illegal entry, mobilisation, congregation by the non-public respondents within the property in addition to restrain on any interim orders allowing entry, puja, inspection, survey, building, set up or alteration of the non secular character of the property whereas the attraction towards the Waqf declaration is pending. The petitioner additionally relied on the order handed by the Supreme Court docket in December 2024 barring Courts from entertaining new petitions questioning the non secular character of properties.
Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, for the petitioner, submitted that the Excessive Court docket issues are already determined and the petitioner is constrained to strategy the highest Court docket as a result of applicability of the doctrine of res judicata. “Now the courts cannot entertain these issues”, she mentioned.
Unconvinced, Justice Datta mentioned, “Until it is a pan-India problem, [no]…You get the dismissal, thereafter we’ll take into account. That is no manner of entertaining Article 32 [petition], simply because Excessive Court docket has…Article 32 was not designed for this…that some orders are handed in Karnataka Excessive Court docket and that might apply as purple judicata”.
Makhija responded that the petitioner was drawing on his non secular rights underneath Article 26. “If Excessive Court docket dismisses your petition, you’re most welcome”, replied Justice Datta. The decide famous that the petitioner, underneath Article 32, was looking for a declaration that the go well with property was a duly notified waqf property, which must be executed by the Waqf Tribunal.
At this level, Makhija defined that the Waqf Tribunal has already declared the property to be a Waqf. Regardless of being decreed, she mentioned, third events file writ petitions yearly (since 2023) and reliefs are sought previous to Maha Shivratri.
Makhija additionally submitted that the case entails numerous points associated to the Locations of Worship Act and requested it might be tagged with the issues associated to the PoW Act. However the bench declined. Finally, it dismissed the case as withdrawn.
As per averments within the petition, the topic property is the grave of Hazrath Mardan-e-Gaib (R.A.) and was notified as a waqf property in 1976. The notification was by no means challenged and attained statutory finality. In 1968, the City Municipal Council, after spot inspection, rejected an software looking for permission to assemble a Samadhi/temple throughout the Dargah compound. It recorded that the positioning was the Mazaar of Hazrath Mardan-e-Gaib surrounded by Muslim graves, with no documentary foundation for any non-Wakf building.
The petitioner claimed that there have been successive makes an attempt to reopen the non secular character of the shrine by civil litigation, however all of them failed. “Communal mobilization” was additionally tried, as in 2022, respondent No.7-Shree Siddalingaswamy Karuneswar Temple at Andola introduced an “Aland Chalo” padayatra to “cleanse a Shivalinga” on the Mazaar (grave) on Mahashivaratri.
The Managing Committee moved the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal looking for everlasting injunction, which go well with was decreed in 2024. The decree nonetheless is pending problem.
The petitioner averred that the decree was sought to be rendered meaningless by means of festival-specific purposes, such because the one looking for permission to carry out puja on Maha Shivratri.
The plea additionally referred to a go well with filed in January 2026 looking for a declaration that Samadhi of Saint Raghav Chaitannya exists throughout the dargah in addition to injunctive aid allowing renovation, building and worship. It additional talked about an advert hoc association made by the Excessive Court docket in 2025, allowing 15 recognized people to supply prayers, topic to establishment and prohibition on set up/building. It was averred that the petitioner in that case was “emboldened” by this advert hoc association to hunt related reliefs in 2026 as an annual entitlement.
“The petitioner’s basic proper to worship on the dargah, to keep up the sanctity and spiritual character of the Dargah is thus being eroded by a thousand cuts, every interim order, every non permanent association chipping away on the finality of the decree dated 06.06.2024 which operates in rem and the constitutional autonomy of the Waqf establishment”, the plea acknowledged.
Look: Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocates Shariq Ahmed and Adnan Yousuf
Case Title: KHALEEL ANSARI Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 197/2026
