Supreme Court declines to entertain plea against pujas at Ladle Mashaq Dargah in Aland town in Kalaburagi

The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 12, 2026) refused to entertain a writ petition seeking to restrain courts from passing orders permitting the performance of Hindu pujas at Raghav Chaitanya (Shivalinga) situated in the Hazrath Ladle Mashaq Dargah premises in Aland town of Kalaburagi district, observing that Article 32 of the Constitution could not be invoked in the matter. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma was hearing a plea filed by Khaleel Ansari, secretary of the managing committee of the Dargah Hazrath Malikul Mashaikh Makdoom Ladle Ansari.

The petitioner submitted that the property had already been declared a Waqf by the Waqf Tribunal. Despite this, third parties were allegedly filing writ petitions and applications before the Karnataka High Court seeking permission to conduct pujas on specific occasions. The High Court had passed ad hoc orders permitting rituals from time to time, including for the upcoming Maha Shivratri on February 15.

The plea contended that such permissions would alter the religious character of the property in violation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. It sought directions to protect the Waqf status of the dargah and to restrain any interim orders allowing entry, puja, inspection, survey, construction, installation or alteration of the religious character of the property while an appeal against the Waqf declaration is pending. The petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court’s December 2024 order which said that courts should not accept new cases challenging the religious character of places of worship.

Senior advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, appearing for the petitioner, argued that once the Waqf Tribunal had declared the property as Waqf, the issue should not be reopened through repeated petitions. She submitted that since 2023, third parties had been approaching the High Court every year ahead of Maha Shivratri seeking permission to perform rituals, and temporary orders are being granted. She argued that this goes against the Waqf Tribunal’s final decision and affects the managing committee’s religious rights under Article 26. She also asked the court to tag the case with other pending matters related to the Places of Worship Act.

The Bench, however, was not inclined to entertain the plea under Article 32. Justice Datta observed that Article 32 was not designed to be invoked merely because certain orders had been passed by a High Court. “Unless it is a pan-India issue,” he remarked, the remedy would not lie under Article 32. He indicated that if the High Court were to dismiss a petition, the aggrieved party could pursue appropriate remedies thereafter.

The Court also noted that a declaration regarding the Waqf status of a property falls within the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal. The request to tag the matter with the Places of Worship Act cases was declined.

The petition was dismissed as withdrawn.