The doctrine of non-justiciability is a double-edged sword — it preserves political space but can also leave constitutional questions unresolved. Analyse in the context of the Ajmer Dargah chadar case.

Q. The doctrine of non-justiciability is a double-edged sword — it preserves political space but can also leave constitutional questions unresolved. Analyse in the context of the Ajmer Dargah chadar case. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Non-justiciability is the judicial refusal to decide a question that lacks judicially manageable standards or is essentially political. In January 2026, a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined a plea to restrain the Prime Minister from offering a ceremonial chadar at Ajmer Sharif Dargah, holding the issue "not justiciable" [1] — a ruling that shows both faces of the doctrine.

How it preserves political space - Separation of powers: a ceremonial act of executive courtesy carries no enforceable legal right; the Court avoided converting a symbolic practice into a judicial mandate [1]. - Judicial economy and moot claims: the offering had already been made, rendering relief infructuous [1]. - Protecting composite culture: the tradition, begun by Nehru in 1947, is continued across governments and parties, with the chadar formally presented through the Minister of Minority Affairs [4]. Adjudication would have forced the Court into a communally charged contest it is ill-placed to settle. - Institutional capital: restraint conserves the Court's legitimacy for rights disputes with clearer legal standards.

What it leaves unresolved - Article 27, barring appropriation of tax proceeds for promoting any religion, and the Articles 25–28 scheme of state neutrality, remain untested against this practice [3]. - Article 14/15 equality: whether state ceremonial patronage is distributed evenly across faiths is left open. - Statutory entanglement: the shrine is already managed by a committee under the Durgah Khawaja Saheb Act, 1955 [2], a legislative involvement no forum has examined against secularism. - Litigation drift: non-decision is not approval; the contest migrates to the parallel civil suit on the temple claim, engaging the Places of Worship Act, 1991 [5], prolonging uncertainty.

Non-justiciability, then, is best read as deferral, not denial. Reserving it for genuinely political questions while squarely deciding the neutrality issues when properly framed — through a well-pleaded challenge or legislative clarity on state ceremonial practice — would let the judiciary protect both India's positive secularism and the fraternity promised by the Preamble.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. SC refuses to hear plea against PM offering 'chadar' — The Hindu, 6 January 2026 — bench composition, "not justiciable" observation, protection of the pending civil suit 2. The Durgah Khawaja Saheb Act, 1955 (Act 36 of 1955) — India Code — statutory Dargah Committee managing the shrine 3. The Constitution of India — Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice — Articles 14, 15, 25–28 and Article 27 4. PM presents sacred Chadar to be placed during the Urs of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti at Ajmer Sharif Dargah — PIB — official continuation of the chadar tradition through the Union Government 5. The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 — India Code — law freezing religious character of places of worship, relevant to the parallel suit