The Supreme Court on Friday (January 31) rejected an application seeking permission to conduct Urs at a Dargah located at the site of a recent demolition in Gujarat’s Gir Somnath district. The festival, which was scheduled to take place between February 1 and 3, was sought to be held at the Haji Mangroli Shah Dargah, which had allegedly been razed by state authorities without prior notice.
The plea was filed as an interlocutory application in an ongoing contempt case against the Gujarat state government, accusing it of demolishing the Dargah in violation of legal procedures. However, a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih dismissed the application, stating that the request could not be considered separately from the main matter pending before the court.
Senior Advocate H. Syed, appearing on behalf of the Dargah’s trustees, argued that the site was a protected monument and that the Urs festival had been celebrated there for several years. He contended that denying permission for the annual religious gathering was unjustified and in violation of established traditions.
According to Syed, the state authorities had refused to allow the event on the grounds that no Dargah existed at the site, a claim he disputed. He emphasised that the demolition was carried out without following due legal procedures and that the religious significance of the structure had been disregarded.
Opposing the application, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat government, asserted that the demolition was not an act of religious discrimination. He argued that the action was part of a broader removal drive that targeted unauthorized constructions on government land, including temples and other structures.
Mehta referred to an affidavit filed by the Department of Archaeology, which stated that no officially recognized protected monument existed at the location. He further cited a survey conducted in 2023 that, according to the state, found no archaeological structures at the site.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant interim relief means that the annual Urs will not be held at the disputed site this year.
The petitioners claim that the demolition was a violation of constitutional protections for religious sites, while the government maintains that it was a legally justified action to clear encroachments.
Comments