The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has decided to move the Supreme Court against the rising demand for a survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at monumental or ancient religious places.

The move is being contemplated following a petition in court demanding an ASI survey at the premises of Sufi Sant Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti’s dargah in Ajmer to determine whether structures or remnants of a Shiv Mandir exist beneath the buildings at the site.

Advertisement

“We want to approach the apex court to safeguard peace and mitigate the effects of arbitrary statements made by leaders of different parties and outfits, without any regard for the centuries-old communal harmony in the city, PUCL national president Kavita Srivastava said here on Saturday.

The Ajmer Dargah Sharif is a symbol of faith for all, and the statements being made by various public figures after the filing of the case are feared to disturb communal harmony, especially following the listing of the petition for hearing by the Civil and Judicial Magistrate, Srivastava said.

“We will file a petition before the SC to ensure adherence to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, and discourage the tendency of frequently raised demands for ASI surveys at such monumental sites,” she said.

“PUCL will also urge the Supreme Court to direct lower courts not to entertain claims that contravene the provisions of the 1991 Act, which prohibits altering the religious character of any place of worship,” she said.

The submission of a petition by an outsider in the court of Civil and Judicial Magistrate (Ajmer West) Manmohan Chandel earlier this week evoked strong reactions from several political and public personalities, including Education Minister Madan Dilawar.

Annoyed by the reactions, the PUCL chief said, “We condemn the misleading claims and propaganda against the Ajmer Dargah and call for adherence to the laws governing religious places.

She said Ajmer is a city of communal harmony, home to globally significant religious sites such as the dargah of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, the Brahma Temple in Pushkar, Jain pilgrimage centres, churches, and Parsi temples.

The dargah has existed for 800 years of the city’s 1,200-year history and has long been a place of faith for people of all religions, attracting millions of devotees over the centuries. Its development owes contributions not only to Muslim rulers but also to Hindu kings.

It is unfortunate that a person, unfamiliar with Ajmer’s history, traditions, and harmony, is attempting to gain cheap popularity by claiming that a temple exists beneath the dargah, she added.

“This baseless claim has sadly been entertained by the judiciary. No such claims have ever been made in Ajmer. The dargah exemplifies communal harmony, with Jain processions, Jhulelal processions, and even RSS path marches receiving flower showers as they pass by the site,” Srivastava said.

The Places of Worship Act, 1991, clearly prohibits altering the religious character of any place of worship. Section 4 of the Act mandates that “the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, shall be maintained, the PUCL chief said.

In the case of M Siddiq (Ram Janmabhoomi Temple) vs Suresh Das (2019), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of this 1991 Act, emphasising its role in preserving communal harmony and protecting India’s pluralistic heritage.

The court further stated that the Act reflects the secular fabric of the Constitution and prevents misuse of historical claims for political or religious gains.

The management of the Ajmer Dargah is governed by the Dargah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955, enacted by the Government of India, which explicitly designates the dargah of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti as a Muslim religious site.

Therefore, claims that the dargah is a temple are in direct violation of Indian law.

PUCL asserts that it is the government’s responsibility to instil a sense of security among minority communities and safeguard the secular character of the nation, Srivastava said.

Besides the apex court, both the Centre and the state government should take suo motu action against those spreading such baseless claims to foster unrest in society, she added.