Allahabad High Court: In a batch of writ petitions filed by the Dargah Syed Salaar Masood Ghazi (RA), Bahraich (‘Bahraich Dargah’) and other stakeholders, against the District Magistrate’s (‘DM’) order declining permission to organise the Annual Jeth Mela at the Bahraich Dargah, the Division Bench of Attau Rahman Masoodi* and Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ., disposed of the petitions, holding that the interim relief provided by the Court virtually granted the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners.
Background
The petitioners contended that the Bahraich Dargah had existed since time immemorial over the Mazar of Syed Salaar Masood Ghazi (RA). An annual ‘Urs’ was organised every year in the month of Basant, i.e., around February, and the ‘Jeth Mela’ was organised in the month of Jeth, i.e., May or June. Lakhs of people from across the country attended the annual Urs and Jeth Mela, which not only had an inter-faith and spiritual significance, but also provided an economic boost to the local people and traders. The Urs and Jeth Mela were organised by the Management of Bahraich Dargah (‘the Management’) with coordination and cooperation of the District Administration. The Management allots land during the Jeth Mela to shopkeepers for setting up temporary shops and entertainment stalls such as circus, swings, magic show, picture show, drama, etc.
To organise this year’s Jeth Mela, the Chairman of the Management sent a letter to the DM, requesting to call a meeting. However, vide the impugned order, the DM declined cooperation for organising the Jeth Mela, considering the reports submitted by the Superintendent of Police(‘SP’), Sub-Divisional Magistrate(‘SDM’), and the Executive Officer(‘EO’), Nagar Palika Parishad, Bahraich.
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present petition seeking directions to the State to co-operate and coordinate in organising the Jeth Mela and not create any hindrance in the visit of devotees of the Bahraich Dargah. Other stakeholders also filed petitions contending that the denial of permission was arbitrary and would cause huge financial loss to the government and local people.
The petitioners contended that permission was denied on flimsy, irrelevant grounds of apprehension of breach of peace. Furthermore, the action was mala fide and had been taken for appeasement of a few political persons.
The State contended that the area near the Bahraich Dargah was occupied by dense and mixed population. During the Jeth Mela, shops were put up even on the pavements and dividers of the roads, which would obstruct the movement of ambulances, fire brigade, and police vehicles in case of any emergency. As per the report submitted by the SDM, the Bahraich Dargah received lakhs of pilgrims and devotees from all over the country. Due to the open border with Nepal, the area fell in the highly sensitive category, and there was a strong possibility of infiltration of anti-national and undesirable elements through the crowd coming and going from the Indo-Nepal border, for which special vigilance was required.
In the previous order dated 17-05-2025, the Court directed that as an interim measure, routine activities at the Bahraich Dargah for carrying out the ritualistic practices shall remain open, for which all the support for maintaining law and order, as well as necessary civic amenities, shall be provided by the State in cooperation with the Management. However, regarding organisation of the Jeth Mela, the Court held that they were not persuaded to interfere with the decision of the State. The Committee was also directed to ensure that devotees visited the shrine in moderate numbers as per routine in order to avoid the possibility of any stampede or unwarranted situation causing a safety concern for the devotees and creating difficulties for the administration.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court remarked that there were two exceptions to the rule that usual ritualistic practices were liable to be protected by the State, namely, if the gathering at the place threatens public order, and secondly, if it causes a threat to the security of the State. The Court added that it was perhaps in the light of these two exceptions that the impugned order was passed, considering the intelligence reports received from various sources by the State, although no such material was placed on record.
The Court stated that in the normal course, all such ritualistic practices which stood recognised since time immemorial could not be obstructed by the State on trivial grounds, particularly when such practices promote cultural harmony in the Society.
“Rituals and usages know no boundaries, and sometimes they reach the zenith of faith at a particular shrine or a religious place of worship.”
The Court further reiterated that the law made by the Parliament may leave certain gaps which may be filled by the Constitutional Courts in the form of ‘interstitial law making’, but so far as the rituals and usages are concerned, they are driven by the ritualistic practices and usages performed at the shrines or religious places which are perceived and experienced to be a spiritual source of conscience protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Courts must desist from commenting on the righteousness of such rituals in contrast to reason or science, except that the rituals and usages, in practice, ought not to threaten the public order or security of the State.
“For observance of such usages and customs, sometimes it does not appeal to reason, but all such practices, which assume a ritualistic model amongst the masses of single or multiple faith, bringing harmony and peace to society, cannot be obstructed.”
Regarding the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court noted that fortunately, peace and tranquillity prevailed during the operation of the arrangements provided under the interim order passed by this Court. The Court stated that, therefore, all the apprehensions of the State stood dispelled for organising the Jeth Mela within the scheduled dates. The Court directed that the Management shall henceforth ensure that the CCTV cameras are installed at the entry/relevant places, especially during Urs and Jeth Mela, to facilitate police in case of any threat or apprehension, and the administration faced no difficulties in providing necessary assistance.
Upon perusal of the Scheme of Administration produced by the Management, the Court stated that it was clear that the Management alone was vested with the power to regulate the management of the Bahraich Dargah and its property, therefore, it was their bounden duty to ensure effective management so as to facilitate the devotees to perform the rituals upon visiting the shrine. The suggestions made by the administration, if any, might also be taken into consideration for ensuring peace and tranquillity.
So far as the rights of other petitioners were concerned, the Court opined that they stood equally protected for the purpose of performing the customary rituals, which, of course, were subject to the limitations mentioned above.
The Court held that since the impugned order lost its efficacy due to the passing of the period of the Jeth Mela and the interim order permitting the performance of rituals dispelled the apprehensions of the State, the relief prayed for by the petitioners was virtually granted.
Accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of.
[Waqf No.19 Dahgah Sharif v. State of U.P., Writ (C) No. 4426 of 2025, decided on 17-07-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Lalta Prasad Misra, Syed Husain, Annapurna Agnihotri, Arti Bali, Alok Kumar Mishra, Akram Azad, Sayyed Faooq Ahmad, Syed Mehfuzur Rehman and Vinod Kumar Yadav
For the respondent: Additional Advocate General Kuldeep Pati Tripathi and Farhan Habib
Buy Constitution of India HERE
