The Supreme Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging the proposed Maha Shivratri puja at the Aland Dargah in Karnataka. A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice S.C. Sharma dismissed the matter as withdrawn. The Court observed that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in the manner sought.
The case is titled Khaleel Ansari v. State of Karnataka & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 197/2026.
What the Petitioner Sought
Khaleel Ansari approached the Court seeking directions to restrain alleged interference with the subject property during festivals such as Maha Shivratri. The plea asked the Court to prevent unlawful entry, mobilisation, or congregation by private respondents at the site.
It also sought to restrain any interim orders permitting entry, puja, inspection, survey, construction, installation, or alteration of the religious character of the property while adjudication related to a suit decree remains pending.
Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija appeared for the petitioner, assisted by Advocates Shariq Ahmed and Adnan Yousuf.
Submissions Before the Court
Senior Advocate Makhija submitted that the Karnataka High Court had already decided related matters. She argued that the petitioner approached the Supreme Court because of the doctrine of res judicata. According to her, repeated petitions were being filed to reopen issues that had already attained finality.
She also submitted that the petitioner invoked his religious rights under Article 26 of the Constitution. Further, she stated that the suit concerning the property had been decreed in the petitioner’s favour on June 6, 2024. However, respondents allegedly continued to file writ petitions every year since 2023, seeking interim relief before Maha Shivratri.
Makhija requested that the matter be tagged with pending cases concerning the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
Court’s Observations
The Bench questioned the maintainability of the petition under Article 32. Justice Datta observed that Article 32 was not designed to challenge High Court orders merely because they may operate as res judicata. The Court noted that unless the matter involved a pan-India constitutional issue, such a petition could not be entertained.
The Bench further stated that if the High Court dismissed the petitioner’s case, he would be at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies thereafter.
The Court also observed that the petitioner was effectively seeking a declaration that the suit property is a duly notified waqf property. Such a determination, the Bench said, falls within the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal.
The Court declined the request to tag the case with matters relating to the Places of Worship Act.
Background of the Dispute
According to the petition, the property in question is the grave (Mazaar) of Hazrath Mardan-e-Gaib (R.A.). It was notified as a waqf property in 1976. The notification was never challenged and, as per the petitioner, attained statutory finality.
The petition also referred to a 1968 decision of the Town Municipal Council. After inspection, the Council rejected an application seeking permission to construct a Samadhi/temple within the Dargah compound. It recorded that the site comprised the Mazaar surrounded by Muslim graves and that there was no documentary basis for non-waqf construction.
The petitioner stated that successive civil attempts to alter the religious character of the shrine had failed. The plea also referred to a 2022 announcement by Respondent No. 7—Shree Siddalingaswamy Karuneswar Temple at Andola—calling for an “Aland Chalo” padayatra to “cleanse a Shivalinga” at the Mazaar on Maha Shivratri.
The Managing Committee had earlier approached the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal seeking a permanent injunction. The Tribunal decreed the suit in 2024. However, that decree is currently under challenge.
The petition also mentioned a suit filed in January 2026 seeking a declaration that the Samadhi of Saint Raghav Chaitannya exists within the Dargah premises. That suit also sought permission for renovation, construction, and worship.
Further, the petition referred to an ad hoc arrangement made by the Karnataka High Court in 2025. Under that arrangement, 15 identified individuals were permitted to offer prayers, subject to maintenance of status quo and a prohibition on installation or construction. The petitioner claimed that this interim arrangement emboldened similar applications in 2026.
According to the plea, repeated interim orders and temporary arrangements were eroding the finality of the decree dated June 6, 2024, which, it claimed, operates in rem and protects the constitutional autonomy of the waqf institution.
Final Order
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
