The Supreme Court heard a petition challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court order that upheld the refusal of the ASI to allow Urs and Namaz at the tomb of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Ghaus in Gwalior, a centrally protected monument. Key Developments Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan granted the ASI and Union of India time to file a counter‑affidavit in the SLP (SLP(C) No. 25083/2025). Petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Manan Mishra , argued that the refusal was arbitrary, citing a recent music festival permitted on the same premises. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj contended that the issue was now academic as the Urs date had passed and warned against creating a "religious right" over a protected monument. The Court suggested that the petitioner may file a fresh application for permission for the next year, which the ASI will consider according to law. Important Facts The tomb is declared a monument of national importance under the 1958 Act and is managed by the ASI. ASI’s rejection (14 Mar 2024) cited Section 30 and Rule 8 of the 1959 Rules, which limit access to sunrise‑to‑sunset and prohibit installations that could damage the structure. The petitioner, identifying as the Sajjada Nashin , claims a 400‑year tradition of holding Urs at the dargah. Earlier civil suits (1995‑2016) by family members claiming ownership were dismissed, and the Union’s claim over the monument has been upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. A 2014 PIL directed the ASI and Gwalior Municipal Corporation to remove encroachments and barred any religious activity without prior ASI permission. UPSC Relevance This case illustrates the tension between heritage conservation and religious freedom , a recurring theme in GS 2 (Polity) and GS 3 (Culture & Heritage). Understanding the statutory framework—particularly the Ancient Monuments Act and its rules—is essential for questions on cultural property protection, the role of the ASI , and the limits of religious claims on protected sites. Way Forward The petitioner is likely to file a fresh representation for the next Urs, prompting the ASI to evaluate the request under the existing legal framework. Future litigants may seek a balanced approach—seeking limited, time‑bound permissions while ensuring no structural damage, possibly through a joint committee of the ASI, district administration, and shrine custodians. Policy‑makers could consider amending the 1958 Act to introduce a clear exemption procedure for centuries‑old religious practices, provided they meet conservation safeguards.