Nashik Dargah’s demolition: SC seeks Mumbai HC’s report on unlisted reports

A bulldozer was used to remove allegedly illegal Daga in Nashik district of Maharashtra on April 16, 2025. Image source: PTI

The Supreme Court continued until the demolition notice of the Nashik civic institution as it razed to the ground, Hazrat Saatpeer Sayed Baba Dargah and sought a report from the Mumbai High Court on the appeal of non-sacred lands.

A few hours before the court hearing, the civilian body staff leveled the structure. It is reported that at noon on April 16, Kathe Galli of Nashik’s action was conducted on Dargah at the interval between April 15 and 16.

One judge of Justices PS Narasimah and Joymala Bagchi pointed out that the petition was filed on April 7 but was not heard.

The bench was ordered and the matter was released on April 21.

The court’s “extraordinary measures” were in the case of Navin Pahwa, a senior advocate who represented Dargah’s management, claiming that despite efforts, the matter was not listed in the High Court.

“In view of the specific statements of senior lawyers, we have taken this extraordinary measure to make efforts to list cases every day. We are not sure about the statements made, and despite repeated requests, the High Court will not list cases. This is a serious statement. It is a serious statement that lawyers will assume and feel responsible for such statements,” the bench said in an order on April 16.

The Supreme Court then directed the Registrar of the High Court of Mumbai to send a report on the listing of the petition.

In seeking a response from the Nasik Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court noted that Mr. Palva pointed out that it was a “urgency” to be removed from the property in question, i.e. the religious structure. He believes that a written petition under article 226 of the Constitution was filed with the High Court on 7 April 2025 and he has been waiting for the matter to be listed since it was.

The Supreme Court recorded Mr Palva’s submission, “It is clear that the High Court has been refusing to list the matter.”

The bench added: “From April 9 to today, we can’t understand what. Lawyers think they’re trying every day.” The bench then continued to seek responses from municipal agencies and other authorities.