Supreme Court refuses to list urgent plea against PMO offering chadar to Ajmer Sharif Dargah on Dec. 22

A Special Vacation Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant refused an oral mentioning to hear on Monday (December 22, 2025) an urgent plea to stop the Prime Minister’s Office from offering a ceremonial chadar at the dargah of the Sufi mystic Khwaja Moinuddin Chishtu in Ajmer during the Urs commemorating the saint’s death anniversary. The lawyer making the mentioning in court said the offer of the ceremonial cloth on behalf of the Prime Minister would send a wrong message as a suit filed by Vishnu Gupta, president of the Hindu Sena, seeking a declaration that the Ajmer dargah was built over an ancient and pre-existing Shiva temple, the ‘Bhagwan Shri Sankatmochan Mahadev Virajman Temple’, was pending in a Rajasthan court. “We pray for a listing today itself. This is regarding the offer of chadar by the Honourable Prime Minister at the Ajmer Sharif Dargah today. We are seeking a stay of that offer by the Office of the Prime Minister. There is a suit pending in an Ajmer court,” the lawyer submitted. He said the issue concerned lakhs of devotees. He further submitted that the offer of chadar would “prejudice the rights of the plaintiff in the suit”. However, Chief Justice Surya Kant refused to list the case later in the day. “No, I will not list any matter today. We are not listing any matter the same day,” the CJI responded to the lawyer’s request for same-day listing. The counsel urged the court to at least then list the case on December 26. “For that, you follow the procedure,” the Chief Justice replied. The Chief Justice, who had assembled his Bench to urgent cases on December 22, had earlier announced in the court room that the court was willing to assemble again either on December 26 or December 29 to hear urgent cases. The court is closed for winter vacations till January 5, 2026. The Rajasthan court had issued notices on the suit to the Ajmer Dargah Committee, Archeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs late last year. The suit had sought an ASI survey of the dargah premises to confirm the existence of remnants of the Shiva temple. The plaintiff had claimed that the architectural features and roof design resemble that of a temple. It was also alleged that a Shiva Linga existed beneath the dargah. The plaintiff had argued violation of Article 25 (right to religion). In December 2024, the Supreme Court had barred civil courts from registering fresh suits or passing orders in pending ones seeking to “re-claim” temples destroyed by Mughal “invaders” in the 16th century. The top court passed the freeze order while agreeing to hear petitions questioning the validity of the Places of Worship Act of 1991, a Central law which preserves the character of religious places as they existed on Independence day. The then Chief Justice, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, had made it clear that the bar on civil courts would...

Preview: ~500 words