AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): The Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered an end to Muslim prayers at the Kamal Maula Mosque complex after declaring the religious character of the disputed 11th-century Bhojshala monument to be that of a temple, while directing the state government to consider allotting alternate land in Dhar district for the construction of a mosque.
The High Court quashed portions of a 2003 order issued by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which had allowed Hindus to perform puja at Bhojshala on Tuesdays while permitting Muslims to offer namaz at the Kamal Maula Mosque on Fridays.
The court held that the religious character of the site was that of a temple and directed the Union government and the ASI to frame arrangements for the administration and management of the Bhojshala temple and Sanskrit learning within the complex.
“At present, the need to address the earlier arrangement does not survive as we have already decided the character of the area,” the bench observed while disposing of petitions seeking exclusive rights over the site.
At the same time, the court stated that “in order to secure the religious rights of the Muslim community,” authorities may consider allotting “suitable and permanent land” within Dhar district if an application is submitted for the construction and administration of a mosque and related religious facilities.
Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for the Muslim side in the Bhojshala dispute, argued before the Madhya Pradesh High Court that archaeological findings alone cannot determine ownership or religious character of the site, citing the Babri Verdict.
Referring extensively to the Supreme Court’s Babri judgment, Khurshid argued that “faith, belief, or historical probability cannot independently establish legal ownership” and that disputes over title and possession must be decided through proper civil trial and legally admissible evidence rather than historical narratives or ASI inferences.
He contended that even if archaeological material suggested the existence of an earlier structure beneath a later construction, such findings did not automatically prove ownership or justify present-day claims.
He also argued that courts cannot adjudicate “historical wrongs of past regimes” through writ proceedings and stressed that the Places of Worship Act, 1991 was enacted to prevent reopening historical religious disputes.
Khurshid further submitted that while ASI-protected monuments are exempt from certain provisions of the Places of Worship Act, this did not mean their religious character could be “open to unlimited challenge.”
He argued that the exclusion existed because ASI law was a self-contained legal framework, not because Parliament intended to permit disputes based solely on historical claims.
The dispute concerns Bhojshala, an 11th-century monument protected by the ASI and claimed by Hindus as a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while Muslims regard the adjacent Kamal Maula structure as a mosque where prayers have historically been offered.
The litigation involved multiple petitions from Hindu, Muslim, and Jain groups regarding the historical and religious character of the site.
Hindu petitioners argued that Bhojshala was originally a Saraswati temple built during the reign of King Bhoja and cited archaeological and inscriptional evidence in support of their claims.
Muslim parties argued that historical records from the Khilji period did not mention the destruction of any Saraswati temple and defended the validity of a 1935 proclamation permitting namaz at the site.
Jain groups also sought prayer rights, claiming architectural and historical links between the monument and Jain traditions.
The High Court had earlier ordered a scientific survey of the site, a process that briefly reached the Supreme Court of India before proceedings resumed under court-monitored conditions.
The court also asked the Union government to consider representations seeking the return of an idol believed by Hindu petitioners to be the Saraswati idol currently housed in the British Museum.
The dispute has also drawn attention to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which generally freezes the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, and bars legal proceedings seeking to alter that status.
However, Section 4(3) of the Act provides an exception for ancient and historical monuments or archaeological sites protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
Zulfiqar Pathan, President of the Kamal Maula Mosque Namaz Intezamia Committee stated that senior advocates Salman Khurshid, Shobha Menon, and Tausif Warsi had strongly represented the Muslim community’s case and placed the 1935 Gazette notification before the court.
“How this order has come about is still beyond our understanding,” Pathan said, adding that while the community respected the High Court’s decision, it would approach the Supreme Court of India if flaws were found in the judgment.
“This is not a complete or one-sided defeat. The doors of the Supreme Court are still open for us, and we will continue to fight the legal battle there in every possible way,” he said, while appealing for peace and patience.
Madhya Pradesh Deputy CM Jagdish Devda said the state government would welcome the court’s verdict and appealed for calm, stating that tight security arrangements had been made in Dhar and urging people to “accept whatever judgment the court gives.”
Extensive security arrangements have been made across Dhar following the Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict, with police implementing heightened internal and external security measures and closely monitoring social media activity.
More than 1,000 police personnel have been deployed across Dhar city and the district and SP Sachin Sharma appealed to the public to peacefully accept the court’s decision and maintain peace and communal harmony.
The ruling has drawn comparisons from critics to the Ayodhya Verdict, in which the Supreme Court of India handed over the disputed Babri Masjid site for the construction of the Ram Temple while directing the allotment of separate land to the Muslim community for a mosque.
AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi criticised the Madhya Pradesh High Court order declaring the Kamal Maula Mosque complex a temple and halting namaz there, saying the ruling had “glaring similarities” with the Ayodhya Verdict and expressing hope that the Supreme Court of India would “set this right and overturn this order.”
AIMIM Delhi chief Shoaib Jamai criticised the ruling on the Bhojshala–Kamal Maula Mosque dispute, saying, “This is an extremely concerning matter. The 1991 Places of Worship Act is being openly torn to shreds. The gang of professional Hindutva lawyers targeting old mosques has succeeded again.”
Your Comment