The Delhi High Court on Monday restrained the Centre from proceeding with demolition of structures in and around the Ajmer Sharif Dargah without first giving affected individuals an opportunity to be heard, sharply criticising the government for issuing a vague and sweeping notice that threatened removal of alleged encroachments.

The matter came up before Justice Sachin Datta, who was hearing a petition filed by Meharaj Miya, a khadim (priest) of the dargah, challenging the November 22, 2025 notice issued by the Centre-appointed Nazim. The notice had directed that various structures—cupboards, boxes, storage units and shops—be cleared by November 27, failing which the Dargah Committee would remove them “without any further notice.”

Court Warns Centre Against Arbitrary Demolition

Justice Datta expressed strong displeasure at the manner in which the Centre sought to act, remarking:

“The notice is as vague as it can get. You just can’t go with a bulldozer and might… everything out. If there is some structure, you will give them notice, no?”

Emphasising the principles of natural justice, the court directed that no demolition or removal action can be taken unless:

• Individuals are served proper show-cause notices, and
• Reasoned decisions are issued after considering their responses.

The bench made it clear that blanket demolition without due process would not be permissible.

Dargah Committee Not Yet Formed, But Named in Demolition Notice

The court also pointed out a glaring procedural flaw: the notice invoked the authority of the Dargah Committee, yet the committee has not even been constituted by the government.

Observing the inconsistency, the court stated:

“The Centre shall expedite the formation of a committee, as soon as possible, to obviate the present state of affairs.”

The absence of the committee is particularly significant because, under the Dargah Khwaja Saheb Act, the committee is the only legally empowered body to manage the dargah’s affairs, including matters related to structures and encroachments.

Petitioner: Nazim Has No Power to Issue Such an Order

Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, representing the petitioner, argued that:

• The Nazim lacks the legal authority to issue demolition-related directives under the Act.
• The notice was issued arbitrarily, without any hearing for affected stakeholders.
• Several of the structures in question—including those belonging to Gaddi Nasheens—have existed for over 800 years and are integral to the dargah’s heritage.

Farasat also highlighted that despite a previous High Court direction in November—ordering the Centre to form the Dargah Committee within three months—no committee has been created to date.

Centre Cites Security Concerns

Appearing for the government, counsel Amit Tiwari argued that the removal of structures was necessitated by security concerns ahead of a major festival scheduled for January, which is expected to draw around 5,000 pilgrims to the site.

He also claimed that:

• The occupants of the disputed structures possessed no documents proving lawful occupation.
• The area had been subject to illegal encroachment.
• The government was in the process of constituting the committee but had not yet completed the process.

High Court’s Interim Protection

Given these contradictions and procedural lapses, the court issued interim protection to the petitioner and others, clearly stating that:

• The Centre cannot take any coercive action,
• No demolition or clearance can occur without proper notices,
• Any future action must comply fully with principles of natural justice, and
• The Dargah Committee must be constituted at the earliest to ensure lawful oversight.

What Happens Next

The case will proceed after the Centre files its detailed response. Until then:

• No structures in or around Ajmer Sharif Dargah can be removed,
• No bulldozers or demolition actions can be undertaken,
• And any future steps must follow due process.

The High Court’s rebuke underscores the judiciary’s stance that administrative expediency cannot override the constitutional requirement of fairness, hearing, and lawful authority, even in matters involving encroachments or security considerations.