Delhi High Court has stalled an attempt by the Centre to bring organisations of the hereditary priests of the Ajmer Sharif dargah under the ambit of the comptroller and auditor general.
Justice Sachin Datta ordered an interim stay on the proposed audit on the grounds that Section 20 of the CAG Act had not been applied or satisfied in this case.
Last year, the Union ministry of minority affairs asked the two anjumans that represent the hereditary priests of the shrine to Moin-ud-din Chishti, a Sufi saint from the late 12th and early 13th century, to give details of their incomes and expenditures.
The anjumans challenged the notice, which had alleged financial irregularities. Last month, after the President’s approval, the Centre ordered a CAG audit of their accounts.
The move comes amid litigation by a Hindutva group that claims the shrine — revered by people across faiths — was originally a temple.
“First, it was the claim that the dargah is a temple. And now this CAG audit,” Syed Sarwar Chishty, secretary of the Anjuman Moinia Fakhria Chishtiya Khuddam Khwaja Sahib Syedzadgan, told The Telegraph.
“I see this as part of the targeting of Islamic institutes and Muslims for the last 11 years, given the chronology
of demolitions, lynchings, CAA, NRC, and the love jihad allegations.”
Chishty added: “The dargah itself is under the management of the Dargah Committee, a statutory body under the central minority affairs ministry. We anjumans only receive offerings from pilgrims. We don’t receive foreign funds or government aid, and are not under the purview of the CAG.”
In his May 14 order, Justice Datta said: “During the course of hearing, two specific queries have been posed to the learned counsel for the CAG: (i) Whether the CAG had agreed to the conduct of audit of the petitioner society as of 15.03.2024, when the aforesaid letter... was issued? (ii) Whether as of 13.01.2025 (the aforesaid communication issued by the Budget Division, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance was issued to the CAG for conduct of audit), the terms and conditions as regards conduct of audit had been agreed upon or not?
“The candid answer of learned counsel for the CAG, to both the above queries, is in the negative. The same lends credence to the petitioner’s contention that the requirements under Section 20 of the CAG Act have not been applied/ satisfied in the present case.
“It is also informed by the learned counsel appearing for CAG that the audit of the petitioner has not yet commenced even thereafter…. In the circumstances, as an interim measure, it is directed that till the next date of hearing,
no further steps shall be taken by the CAG....”
Section 20 outlines the conditions under which the CAG can audit the accounts of bodies that are not ordinarily under its purview.
News agency PTI reported that the high court was hearing pleas alleging unlawful search or visit by the CAG at the anjumans without notice. The CAG’s stand is that it has not done anything unlawful.
The CAG told the court that the minority affairs ministry had in March 2024 “already informed the petitioner that to improve the management of dargah affairs the central authority proposed an audit and provided an opportunity to make a representation against such audit”, the report said.