Supreme Court Declines Urgent Hearing on Plea Against PM's Chadar Offering at Ajmer Dargah

In a swift dismissal during vacation bench proceedings, the Supreme Court of India on December 22, 2025, refused to urgently list a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the long-standing tradition of Prime Minister Narendra Modi offering a ceremonial 'chadar' at the Ajmer Sharif Dargah. The plea, filed by activists from Hindu outfits, argues that such state-sponsored gestures violate constitutional secularism and historical sovereignty, raising broader questions about the boundaries between government actions and religious practices. As Union Minister Kiren Rijiju proceeded with the offering on behalf of the Prime Minister later that day, the episode underscores ongoing tensions in India's pluralistic legal landscape.

The case, titled Jitender Singh v. Union of India (Diary No. 74179/2025), was mentioned before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha, representing the petitioners, urged immediate intervention, citing the imminence of the 814th Urs celebrations of Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti. However, the bench firmly stated, "No listing today," directing the petitioners to approach the court registry for regular scheduling. This decision allows the ceremonial tradition—initiated by India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1947—to continue uninterrupted for now, but it leaves the substantive challenge hanging in procedural limbo.

Background: The Tradition and Its Discontents

The offering of a 'chadar'—a richly embroidered cloth presented as a symbolic gesture of respect—has been a staple of India's political calendar since independence. Successive prime ministers, regardless of political affiliation, have participated in this ritual at the Ajmer Sharif Dargah, the revered shrine of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, a 13th-century Sufi mystic credited with spreading Islam in the Indian subcontinent. Proponents view it as a bridge-building exercise promoting communal harmony and cultural syncretism, aligning with India's ethos of unity in diversity.

Yet, for the petitioners—Jitender Singh, president of Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, and Vishnu Gupta, national president of Hindu Sena—this practice represents a profound constitutional anomaly. Their PIL contends that the Union government's "continued practice of State-sponsored ceremonial honour, official patronage, and symbolic recognition" extended to Chishti and the dargah is "unconstitutional, arbitrary, historically unfounded, and contrary to the constitutional ethos, dignity, and sovereignty of the Republic of India." They argue that such acts blur the line between state neutrality and religious endorsement, infringing on the principles enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution, including justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.

The petitioners draw heavily on historical narratives to bolster their claim. They allege that Chishti arrived in India amid the 12th-century invasions of Muhammad of Ghor (Shahabuddin Ghori), associating him with "foreign conquest and conversion campaigns" that subjugated native populations. "Historical records indicate that Moinuddin Chishti was associated with foreign invasions that conquered Delhi and Ajmer and caused mass subjugation and conversions of the native population, actions fundamentally contrary to India's sovereignty, dignity, and civilisational ethos," the petition states. Extending ceremonial homage to such a figure, they assert, undermines national integrity and disregards the "will of the people."

One petitioner, Vishnu Gupta, had previously written to Prime Minister Modi urging him to refrain from the offering, highlighting personal efforts to halt the tradition before escalating to judicial intervention. The plea also invokes a 1966 Supreme Court precedent, Dargah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali , where a Constitutional Bench ruled that the Ajmer Dargah does not qualify as a "religious denomination" under Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom to manage religious affairs. This, the petitioners argue, strips the shrine of special protections and reinforces the impropriety of state involvement.

Court Proceedings: A Procedural Roadblock

The mentioning on December 22 unfolded amid the Supreme Court's vacation schedule, where urgent matters are typically scrutinized for immediacy. Sinha emphasized the temporal urgency, noting, "We are seeking stay of offering of chadar in Ajmer Dargah by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Our plea regarding Sankat Mochan Mandir there is pending." This reference alludes to a parallel litigation in the Ajmer District Court, where Hindu Sena has alleged that the dargah was constructed over the ruins of a demolished Shiva temple, specifically the 'Bhagwan Shri Sankatmochan Mahadev Virajman Temple.'

Despite the plea for expedition, Chief Justice Kant was unequivocal: "No listing today." The bench clarified that while urgent matters could be considered for listing on December 26 or 29 if they met the threshold, same-day hearings were off-limits. This procedural stance reflects the judiciary's caution against disrupting established customs without thorough deliberation, especially during festive periods like the Urs, which draws millions of devotees annually.

Post-hearing, the tradition proceeded as planned. Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju offered the chadar at the dargah, stating to reporters, "I have come to the dargah during the Urs. While presenting the chadar, I prayed for peace and prosperity on behalf of the Government of India... for the progress of our nation, for peace, harmony and for the country's development." Rijiju's participation underscores the government's commitment to the ritual as a symbol of inclusive governance.

Related Litigation: A Pattern of Contestation

This PIL is not an isolated salvo in the legal battles surrounding the Ajmer Sharif Dargah. Vishnu Gupta's involvement traces back to September 2024, when Hindu Sena filed a civil suit in the Ajmer District Court. The suit, represented by Advocate Shashi Ranjan Singh, seeks a declaration that the site is a pre-existing Hindu temple destroyed by "Muslim invaders" during medieval conquests. It cites "historical records and extensive research" claiming no evidence of construction on vacant land, pointing to architectural similarities—such as the "roof design of the main entrance gate"—to traditional Hindu structures.

In January 2025, Gupta moved an interlocutory application in the same suit, arguing that the government's chadar offering to a "disputed structure" interferes with judicial processes. He contended that such acts undermine judicial independence and the right to a fair trial while the ownership dispute remains sub judice. The Ajmer court has yet to rule on these claims, but the parallel proceedings illustrate how religious site disputes increasingly intersect with state rituals, echoing high-profile cases like the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid litigation.

The Supreme Court's reference to the pending Sankat Mochan Mandir plea during the mentioning suggests potential linkages. If admitted, the PIL could consolidate with these lower court matters, prompting a unified examination of the dargah's religious character and the state's role therein.

Legal Analysis: Navigating Secularism and Tradition

At its core, this challenge probes the tension between constitutional secularism and customary state practices. Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion) implicitly demand state neutrality, while the absence of an explicit establishment clause in the Indian Constitution—unlike the U.S. First Amendment—has led to a more accommodative approach. The Supreme Court has historically balanced these through doctrines like "essential religious practices" (from Shirur Mutt cases) and benign secularism, allowing state involvement in religious affairs if it fosters harmony rather than favoritism.

The petitioners' reliance on Dargah Committee, Ajmer is apt but contestable. That 1966 judgment held the dargah committee under state control via the Dargah Act, 1955, denying it denominational autonomy under Article 26. However, it did not preclude voluntary state gestures like chadar offerings, which courts might view as cultural rather than religious endorsements. Critics could argue that the tradition, spanning 78 years and multiple regimes, has acquired legitimacy through acquiescence, akin to state subsidies for Haj pilgrimages upheld in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (though later refined).

Moreover, the historical allegations of temple demolition invoke the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which freezes religious character as of August 15, 1947, barring retrospective claims. Any attempt to litigate the dargah's origins could face this statutory bar, rendering the chadar plea a proxy for deeper revisionist narratives. For legal practitioners, this raises procedural hurdles: PILs on such matters risk dismissal as politically motivated under S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (judges' transfer case principles), emphasizing locus standi and public interest.

The plea also touches on Article 25 (freedom of religion), positing that state participation "against the will of the people" erodes sovereignty. Yet, empirical evidence of public opposition is scant; surveys often show the Urs as a unifying event. This discrepancy could invite scrutiny on the petitioners' standing, potentially leading to a nuanced ruling on when tradition morphs into unconstitutional patronage.

Implications for Legal Practice and Broader Society

For the legal community, this case signals a resurgence in challenges to syncretic traditions, potentially influencing how courts handle state-religious intersections. Litigators in constitutional law may see increased filings testing secular boundaries, from festival subsidies to leader-led rituals. It could also catalyze amendments to statutes like the Dargah Act, clarifying state roles in waqf management.

Broader impacts loom large. Amid rising communal polarization, the Supreme Court's eventual disposition—whether admission or dismissal—will shape narratives on secularism. Upholding the tradition might reaffirm India's inclusive model, while granting relief could embolden similar pleas against other practices, like state funding for Kumbh Mela or church grants. As the plea advances through the registry, stakeholders await a hearing that balances heritage with constitutional imperatives.

Drawn by Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha and filed through Advocate-on-Record Anantha Narayana MG, the PIL's trajectory remains uncertain. Yet, it exemplifies how judicial forums increasingly mediate cultural flashpoints, reminding legal professionals of their pivotal role in safeguarding India's constitutional mosaic.