Observing that the monument that houses the grave of Tansen, one of the “nine jewels” in the court of Mughal emperor Akbar, deserves to be protected, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal seeking permission to perform religious and cultural activities at the tomb of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus in Gwalior.
The tomb of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus was declared a protected monument of national importance in 1962 under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
A Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh noted that the monument “deserves to be protected with utmost care and caution” and no such activities, as sought by the appellant, can be permitted.
“…Constitutional vision and constitutional morality ought to prevail over personal and vested interest. It (the monument) deserves to be protected with utmost care and caution, and no activity as sought by the petitioner can be permitted, lest the monument lose its originality, sanctity and vitality. It would be a national loss then,” the court said on June 16.
According to court documents, the premises of the monument contain the graves of musical maestro Tansen and Sufi saint Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus, both from the 16th century.
The court documents said Tansen was remembered for his classical Dhrupad compositions. “Dhrupad, an epic form of music, is considered to be invented by Raja Man Singh Tomar (ruler of Gwalior), in medieval times,” the court said, while reasoning that the monument where he is laid to rest deserves preservation and protection.
The court was dealing with an appeal by one Syed Sabla Hasan, who claimed that he is the Sajjada Nashin (spiritual caretaker) and the legal heir of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus.
Story continues below this ad
It was argued on his behalf that various religious and cultural practices had been performed at the dargah premises for over 400 years and that their discontinuation by the Archaeological Survey of India, following the declaration of the site as a protected monument, was arbitrary and illegal.
The court stressed that “it is the duty of the ASI and the district administration to protect this monument of national importance with utmost care and strictness” so that the monument carrying history and culture can be preserved.