Introduction

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has intervened in the controversial demolition of the Hazrat Satpeer Sayed Baba Dargah in Nashik, Maharashtra. The court questioned the Bombay High Court regarding allegations that a plea filed to prevent the demolition was not given urgent consideration, raising serious concerns about judicial response and due process.

Background of the Case

Case Title: Hazrat Satpeer Sayed Baba Dargah v. Nashik Municipal Corporation and Another

On April 1, 2025, the Nashik Municipal Corporation issued a demolition notice to the historic dargah. In response, the dargah administration promptly filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court on April 7. However, their urgent request for case listing was allegedly denied on April 9, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Response and Interim Relief

On April 16, the matter was heard by Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The bench expressed surprise at the apparent delay in listing the plea, especially considering the religious and cultural importance of the structure in question.

“We can’t comprehend what happened between April 9 and now,” the bench noted, emphasizing the urgency due to the impending demolition of a holy site.

Citing the seriousness of the claim—that the High Court failed to list the matter despite repeated requests—the Supreme Court issued an interim stay order, temporarily halting the demolition.

Supreme Court Seeks Accountability

The bench highlighted the gravity of the petitioner’s claims and insisted that the senior counsel take responsibility for the statements made:

“This is a significant statement. The learned counsel will accept responsibility for the fallout.”

The Registrar General of the Bombay High Court has now been directed to submit a detailed report on the status of the plea’s listing. The matter will be heard again on April 21, 2025.

Demolition Already Executed?

Adding to the controversy, several media reports claim that the dargah was demolished just hours before the Supreme Court issued its stay order. If confirmed, this may lead to further judicial scrutiny and potential consequences for the municipal authorities.

The petitioner is being represented by Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa and Advocate-on-Record Jasmeet Singh (currently no Wikipedia pages available).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s proactive stance in questioning procedural lapses and issuing an interim stay underlines the importance of judicial transparency, religious freedom, and due process. With a final hearing scheduled, all eyes will be on the upcoming developments in this sensitive legal battle.