The petitioner questioned the order of the divisional bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeal against the order of the only judge. File. | Photo Credit: Hind
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an action attacking an order that refused to allow religious activities, including URS, in Dargah Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus in Gwalior.
Archaeological survey of India (probably) declared Dargah as a protected monument in 1962.
The application, which challenges the June order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gwalior, came to the hearing in front of the BV Nagarathn and R Mahadevan, who issued the Center announcement and was looking for their answers on the matter.
“Creating notifications to respondents about a petition of special holiday and also for temporary prayer,” said the bench in its order 19 September.
The petitioner questioned the order of the divisional bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeal against the order of the only judge.
The free judge dismissed an action looking for authorities to allow the petitioner and others to perform religious activities such as URS and Na.
The High Court noted that according to the petitioner, Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus was a legal heir.
The petitioner informed the High Court that in Dargah has been carried out in Dargah over the past 400 years of various religious and cultural activities, but after probably who claimed Dargah as a protected monument, such activities were banned or limited.
The High Court noted that in March 2024 the petitioner submitted an application requesting permission to make URS in Dargah, but the same was rejected.
In front of the High Court, the Center advisor stated that the tomb of Muhammad Ghaus was a centrally protected memory and was protected and maintained.
The High Court noted that the tomb of Muhammad Ghaus was in Gwalior and it is true that it was a centrally protected monument and declared a national monument back in 1962.
He further noted that the tombs of music Maestro Tansen and Muhammad Ghaus were built.
“In fact, it is the duty of probably and the district administration to protect this memorial of national importance with maximum care and strictness so that such an ancient monument bearing history and culture in its ambity is maintained for offspring,” said the High Court.
The High Court said it deserves to be protected with maximum care and caution, and no activity, as the petitioner sought.
When dismissing the dismissal, the petitioner also stated that the petitioner did not question the order in March 2024, which rejected his application.
Published – 29 September 2025 06:21
