The petition was filed by Jitender Singh, president of the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, through advocate Barun Kumar Sinha. It questioned what it described as “state-sponsored ceremonial honours” being extended to the 12th-century Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti and sought a blanket prohibition on such symbolic gestures by state authorities, including the Prime Minister.
The petitioner argued that such acts lacked constitutional or legal basis and allegedly violated the principles of national sovereignty and secular governance. The plea asserted that honouring a figure like Chishti—whom the petitioner linked to foreign conquest and conversion—was contrary to India’s constitutional ethos.
During the hearing, Sinha relied on the Supreme Court’s 1961 Constitution Bench decision in Dargah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali, to argue that the Ajmer Sharif dargah did not qualify as a protected religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution.
A bench of the Supreme Court, however, was not persuaded by these arguments. It held that the issues raised in the PIL were not fit for adjudication under its writ jurisdiction, terming the matter “not justiciable.” The Court emphasized that the practice in question did not merit judicial interference, effectively treating the ceremonial gesture as outside the scope of enforceable constitutional scrutiny.
Crucially, the bench also clarified that the dismissal of the present petition would not affect the ongoing civil suit filed in a trial court in Ajmer in 2024, which challenges the Dargah’s status and alleges unauthorised occupation of a Hindu temple. “Dismissal of this petition will not affect the civil suit,” the Court noted in its order.
The PIL had gained attention after being mentioned before the Court on December 22, just before the 814th Urs of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti. On the same day, Union Minister for Minority Affairs Kiren Rijiju offered a ceremonial chadar at the Dargah on behalf of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, continuing a tradition that dates back to India’s early post-independence era and has been followed by successive Prime Ministers.
In his plea, Jitender Singh argued that offering a ceremonial chadar at a Sufi saint’s shrine by the highest executive office in the country amounted to “official patronage” of a particular religion. He alleged that such practices were arbitrary and violated the secular spirit of the Constitution. The petitioner also raised historical claims about the origins of the shrine and its association with invasions in medieval India.
Despite these submissions, the Court found no grounds to entertain the matter under Article 32 and dismissed the PIL.
