SC Rejects PIL on PM's Ajmer Dargah Ritual - 2026-01-05

SC Rejects PIL on PM's Ajmer Dargah Ritual

In a swift dismissal that underscores the limits of judicial intervention in ceremonial state practices, the Supreme Court of India on January 5, 2025, rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the longstanding tradition of the Prime Minister offering a ceremonial 'chadar' at the Ajmer Sharif Dargah. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, deemed the issues raised "not justiciable" under Article 32 of the Constitution, emphasizing that such symbolic gestures fall outside the purview of writ jurisdiction. The petitioners, representing Hindu organizations, argued that the practice represents unconstitutional state patronage of a religious figure tied to medieval invasions, violating secularism and national dignity. However, the Court clarified that its order would not impact a parallel civil suit pending in Ajmer District Court, which alleges the dargah was built over a Shiva temple. This ruling highlights the judiciary's restraint in matters blending tradition, history, and governance, leaving deeper historical disputes to lower courts.

Background: The Chadar Tradition and Its Roots

The ceremonial offering of a 'chadar'—a sacred cloth covering— at the Ajmer Sharif Dargah has been a fixture of Indian political culture since independence. Initiated by India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, in 1947, the practice symbolizes respect for Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, whose 12th-13th century shrine in Rajasthan attracts millions of devotees from diverse faiths. During the annual Urs celebrations, marking the saint's death anniversary, the 814th edition in December 2024 saw Union Minister Kiren Rijiju presenting the chadar on behalf of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, continuing a bipartisan tradition upheld by leaders across administrations.

This gesture is often viewed as an interfaith bridge in India's secular framework, promoting harmony in a multi-religious society. Yet, it has increasingly come under scrutiny amid broader debates on historical narratives and state involvement in religious affairs. The petitioners in the PIL portrayed Chishti not as a unifying mystic but as a figure "associated with foreign invasions" led by Muhammad of Ghor in the 12th century, claiming his arrival facilitated the conquest of Ajmer and the subjugation of local Hindu rulers like Prithviraj Chauhan. Such claims echo ongoing controversies over medieval structures, including allegations of temple destructions and conversions, which have fueled litigation across India.

The tradition's legal underpinnings are thin, lacking explicit statutory sanction, which formed the crux of the PIL's challenge. As the counsel argued, it began as a post-partition custom without constitutional basis, evolving into an "official patronage" that petitioners deemed arbitrary and contrary to the Preamble's emphasis on justice, liberty, and equality.

The Petition: Challenging State Patronage

Filed by Jitender Singh, president of Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, and Vishnu Gupta, president of Hindu Sena, the PIL—titled Jitender Singh v. Union of India (Diary No. 74179/2025)—sought a permanent injunction against the Prime Minister and government officials offering chadar or extending "state-sponsored ceremonial honour, official patronage, and symbolic recognition" to Chishti and the dargah. Drafted by Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha and filed through Advocate-on-Record Anantha Narayana MG, the plea contended that the practice undermines constitutional morality and secular governance.

Central to their arguments was the 1961 Constitution Bench decision in Dargah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali , where the Supreme Court held that the Ajmer dargah does not constitute a distinct religious denomination entitled to protections under Article 26, which guarantees freedom to manage religious affairs. The petitioners extended this to argue that state involvement in its rituals lacks any denominational justification, rendering it unconstitutional. They further alleged that honoring Chishti glorifies a history of "mass subjugation and conversions," clashing with India's sovereignty and the "will of the people."

As one petitioner noted in a prior representation to PM Modi, the act is "against the will of the people" and should cease to uphold national dignity. The PIL prayed for guidelines prohibiting such "ceremonial glorification" in the future, framing it as a direct assault on the secular ethos enshrined in the Constitution's basic structure.

These contentions tapped into a larger narrative of historical revisionism, with Gupta having previously filed representations and suits linking the dargah to demolished Hindu sites. The plea gained urgency when mentioned on December 22, 2024, ahead of the Urs, though the vacation bench declined urgent listing, allowing the offering to proceed.

Supreme Court Proceedings: Dismissal on Justiciability Grounds

During the January 5 hearing, Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha pressed the bench on the practice's origins in 1947 and its misalignment with the 1961 judgment. He highlighted the pending civil suit claiming the dargah's construction over temple ruins, urging review under secular principles. However, CJI Surya Kant interjected firmly: "This court would not make any comment as the issue is not justiciable."

The bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, concurred that the reliefs sought—declaring the tradition unconstitutional and issuing prohibitions—lacked legal sustainability. In its order, the Court stated: "In our considered opinion, no issue sought to be raised is justiciable. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed." CJI Kant further remarked orally, “This is infructuous now. This is not a justiciable issue. No issue raised is justiciable. Writ petition is dismissed,” noting the chadar had already been offered, rendering the plea moot.

The justices advised pursuing the civil route: “You go and seek appropriate relief in the civil suit,” emphasizing, “Suit is pending, pursue it. This order shall have no bearing on the pending civil suit.” This delineation preserved the integrity of ongoing lower court proceedings while closing the door on high court escalation of ceremonial disputes.

The Pending Civil Suit: A Separate Battlefield

Integral to the narrative is Civil Suit No. 66/2024, filed by Vishnu Gupta in September 2024 before the Ajmer District Court. It seeks to declare the site as 'Bhagwan Shri Sankatmochan Mahadev Virajman Temple,' alleging Muslim invaders destroyed an ancient Shiva temple and built the dargah atop it. The suit cites historical texts and architectural similarities, such as the shrine's entrance resembling Hindu designs, to claim unauthorized occupation.

The SC's non-interference underscores a key principle: writ petitions under Article 32 are not substitutes for civil remedies in property or historical disputes. By ring-fencing the suit, the Court ensured petitioners could press evidentiary claims—like alleged temple evidence—without the PIL's dismissal prejudicing them. This suit, represented by Advocate Shashi Ranjan Singh, remains active, potentially setting precedents for similar claims at sites like Gyanvapi or Mathura.

Legal Implications: Boundaries of Judicial Review

At its core, this dismissal reinforces the judiciary's self-imposed limits on reviewing executive actions that are symbolic rather than substantive. Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights, but as the bench implied, ceremonial honors like the chadar offering do not prima facie infringe enforceable rights such as equality (Article 14) or religious freedom (Article 25). The 1961 Dargah Committee precedent, while invoked by petitioners, actually supports non-interference: it regulated dargah management without questioning state gestures, affirming the shrine's public character over denominational autonomy.

On secularism, the ruling aligns with precedents like S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), where state neutrality prohibits favoritism but allows cultural inclusivity. Petitioners' invocation of "constitutional morality"—coined in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)—falters here, as the Court viewed the tradition as a neutral, historical practice fostering harmony, not endorsement of one faith. The historical association claim, while provocative, was sidelined as non-justiciable policy, echoing State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) on judicial avoidance of political questions.

This decision narrows PIL scope in religious matters, cautioning against using public interest litigation for ideological agendas. It signals that absent direct rights violations, courts will defer to executive discretion in interfaith diplomacy, preserving separation of powers.

Broader Ramifications for Secular Governance

For legal practitioners, this case offers a blueprint: challenges to state-religious interactions must demonstrate tangible harm, not mere ideological discomfort. Constitutional lawyers may anticipate fewer successful PILs on traditions like budget allocations for Haj or temple grants, shifting focus to evidence-based civil suits. The ruling could influence ongoing disputes, such as those over state funding for religious events, by prioritizing judicial economy.

In the justice system, it promotes efficiency by directing historical claims—often mired in archaeology and oral traditions—to specialized forums like civil courts or ASI inquiries. Amid India's polarized discourse on heritage, the non-bearing clause protects litigants from SC dismissals derailing lower proceedings, fostering fair trials.

Yet, it raises questions: Does non-justiciability embolden unchecked state symbolism? Critics, including the petitioners, argue it perpetuates "arbitrary" practices eroding secular ethos. For the legal community, this underscores the need for nuanced advocacy, balancing cultural preservation with constitutional scrutiny.

Conclusion: Navigating Tradition and Constitution

The Supreme Court's dismissal of the Ajmer chadar PIL reaffirms that not every grievance merits constitutional adjudication, particularly when rooted in tradition rather than rights. By deeming the matter infructuous and non-justiciable, the bench navigated a delicate interplay of history, faith, and governance, while safeguarding parallel civil remedies. As India grapples with its pluralistic identity, this ruling serves as a reminder of judicial restraint's role in upholding democracy. Legal professionals must now watch the Ajmer civil suit for ripples, as it could unearth evidentiary battles shaping future secular jurisprudence. Ultimately, the chadar tradition endures—not as legal mandate, but as a cultural thread in the nation's fabric, beyond the courtroom's reach.