Supreme Court to Examine Ban on Religious Activities at Historic Tansen-Ghaus Tomb Complex

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has agreed to scrutinize a ban on religious and cultural activities at the revered Dargah of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus in Gwalior, a 16th-century Mughal-era complex that also houses the tomb of the legendary musician Tansen. By issuing a notice on a Special Leave Petition (SLP), the apex court has reopened a critical legal debate at the intersection of religious freedom, historical practice, and the state's mandate to protect national heritage.

A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan has called upon the Union of India and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to respond to the plea filed by Sabla Hasan, who claims to be the Sajjada Nashin (hereditary custodian) of the Dargah. The Court's decision to issue notice not only on the main petition but also on the interim prayer for relief signals its intent to delve deeply into the matter, which could have far-reaching implications for numerous protected sites across the country that retain religious significance.

The case, SABLA HASAN v UNION OF INDIA & ORS , challenges a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that upheld the ASI's refusal to permit activities like the annual 'Urs' (death anniversary commemoration) and daily 'Namaz' (prayers) within the monument's premises.

Background: A Monument of National Importance

The tomb complex of Muhammad Ghaus, a Sufi saint, and his renowned disciple Tansen, one of the 'nine jewels' of Emperor Akbar's court, was declared a centrally protected monument of national importance in 1962. This designation brought it under the stringent purview of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act), vesting its protection and maintenance with the ASI.

The petitioner contends that for over 400 years, prior to and following this designation, the Dargah has been a site of continuous religious and cultural activities. However, in recent years, the ASI has prohibited these practices, culminating in a formal denial of permission in March 2024. The ASI cited the AMASR Act and its 1959 Rules, which prohibit activities that could damage or desecrate a protected monument, warning that violations are punishable with up to two years of imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh.

The High Court's Rationale: Prioritizing Preservation

The petitioner’s challenge was comprehensively rejected by both a single-judge bench and a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court's judgment centered on the fundamental classification of the site and the overriding duty of preservation. It drew a clear line, stating that the Gwalior tomb complex is not legally considered a "place of worship and shrine" under the Act.

The High Court decisively noted, "This monument does not fall under the place of worship and shrine. It is being acquired by the Central Government. It is an archaeological monument declared by the Central Government as monument of National Importance under Section 4 of the Act of 1958. Therefore, it cannot be used except to be protected as monument."

This interpretation effectively strips the site of any dual-use character, prioritizing its status as a sterile archaeological asset over its history as a living place of worship. The court expressed concerns, echoing the government's submissions, about the potential for physical damage. It reasoned: "If petitioner is permitted to conduct Urs and Namaz then certainly as alleged by respondents/Union of India, structure would suffer spoilation/damage where tents would be installed, hammering nails would be fixed, lights would be fixed, thus causing degradation, spoilation, pollution and desecration."

Furthermore, the government's counsel highlighted the petitioner's past conduct, accusing him of unauthorized installations and claiming that he did not approach the court "with clean hands," referencing previously failed litigation over ownership of the tomb.

Legal Arguments and Supreme Court's Intervention

The SLP before the Supreme Court challenges this restrictive interpretation. The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate A. Mariarputham, argues that the ASI's blanket ban ignores centuries of unbroken tradition and conflates regulated religious observance with acts of vandalism. The core legal question is whether the AMASR Act mandates a complete cessation of all activities, including long-standing, non-damaging religious practices, at a protected monument that has historically served as a place of worship.

The Supreme Court's decision to issue notice suggests it finds merit in examining several key legal facets:

1. Interpretation of the AMASR Act: Does the Act's protective mandate create an absolute bar on pre-existing religious uses, or does it allow for regulated continuation of such practices, provided they do not harm the monument's integrity?
2. Balancing Constitutional Rights: The case involves a delicate balancing act between the state's duty to preserve cultural heritage (an aspect of Article 49 of the Constitution) and the fundamental right to freedom of religion (Article 25).
3. The 'Place of Worship' Distinction: The petitioner is likely to contest the High Court's finding that the Dargah is not a place of worship. The argument will hinge on whether this classification depends on current official designation or on historical and continued use. Many ASI-protected sites, such as certain temples and mosques, continue to host active worship.
4. Proportionality of the Ban: The Supreme Court may consider whether a complete prohibition is a proportionate response to the risk of damage, or if less restrictive measures, such as imposing strict conditions on the conduct of religious events, could achieve the goal of preservation.

Broader Implications for Heritage Law

The outcome of this case will be closely watched by legal experts, heritage conservationists, and religious communities. A definitive ruling from the Supreme Court could establish a crucial precedent for the management of thousands of protected monuments across India.

It could clarify the legal framework for sites that are simultaneously archaeological treasures and active places of faith. A ruling in favor of the petitioner could empower communities to seek the revival of traditional practices at other historical sites, subject to ASI regulation. Conversely, an affirmation of the High Court's order would strengthen the ASI's authority to prioritize preservation above all else, potentially leading to the cessation of religious activities at other protected monuments that are currently in use for worship.

The responses from the Centre and the ASI will be pivotal in shaping the arguments. The Supreme Court is now tasked with navigating the complex terrain between preserving the relics of the past and respecting the living traditions that often animate them.