Back
Jains Seek Prayer Rights in Bhojshala Dispute
In a significant development in the long-standing Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute, Jain petitioners appeared before the on , staking a claim for worship rights at the contested 11th-century monument in Dhar. , representing petitioner Salek Chand Jain, argued that the site's historical and architectural features establish deep Jain associations, challenging the order that permits access only to Hindus and Muslims. Emphasizing India's constitutional secularism, Rajbhar sought limited prayer rights for Jains, re-identification of key idols, and restoration efforts, potentially broadening this Hindu-Muslim binary conflict into a multi-faith contestation.
The hearing, before a comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, forms part of a cluster of petitions including v. Union of India (WP 10497/2022) and others. As the court continues proceedings on , this intervention raises critical questions about equal religious access, the neutrality of ASI surveys, and the application of secular principles in heritage disputes.
Background: The Contested Legacy of Bhojshala
The Bhojshala complex, named after the 11th-century Parmar king Raja Bhoj, is a protected monument under ASI. Hindus revere it as the Saraswati (Vagdevi) Temple, a center of ancient learning, while Muslims identify it as the Kamal Maula Mosque. Tensions escalated with seeking a scientific survey to ascertain its religious character and halt Muslim Friday prayers, mirroring disputes at Gyanvapi Mosque and Shahi Idgah.
In , ASI issued an administrative order establishing a : Hindus conduct worship on Tuesdays and during Basant Panchami, while Muslims offer namaz on Fridays. This arrangement, however, explicitly omits any provision for other communities. Recent PILs, including those by , prompted the High Court to order an ASI scientific survey. The challenged this in the , which permitted the survey but directed the High Court to publicize the report, share copies with parties, and hear objections before final adjudication.
A notification by the Dhar princely state granting Muslims namaz rights has also been contested by the Centre as legally invalid. The dispute echoes the Ayodhya precedent, where faith, title, and archaeological evidence intersected, but now introduces a third claimant, complicating resolution.
Jain Petitioners' Arguments: Unveiling Overlooked Associations
Advocate Rajbhar opened by reading the
ASI order, terming the exclusion of Jains a "glaring omission." He contended that the site was historically a center of learning patronized by Raja Bhoj, known not just for Hindu scholarship but also for supporting Jain traditions.
"Raja Bhoj, after whom Bhojshala is named, was not only a patron of Hindu learning but also supported Jain scholars and traditions,"
Rajbhar submitted, citing historical records of Jain poets and scholars at the Parmar court.
Rajbhar drew parallels between Bhojshala's architecture and the renowned Dilwara Jain Temples in Mount Abu. He referenced a
report by the Government Central Press, Shimla, which described portions of the structure as erected from "Jaina remains," with domes and columns mirroring Dilwara styles.
"The architectural features of the disputed site have similarities with the Dilwara Jain Temples located in Mount Abu,"
he argued.
Criticizing the ASI survey report, Rajbhar accused the agency of selective interpretation: documenting multi-religious elements like Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions but attributing structures predominantly to Hindu origins.
"The ASI had selectively referred to remains linked to Hindu traditions while overlooking Jain associations,"
he claimed, asserting that the survey's mandate was factual documentation, not religious adjudication.
Iconographic Disputes: The Ambika Idol Controversy
A focal point was an idol claimed by Hindus as Goddess Saraswati (Vagdevi), now housed in the British Museum. Rajbhar disputed this, identifying it as Jain Yakshini Ambika. Displaying photographs and museum descriptions, he highlighted distinguishing features:
"Jain iconography could be distinguished by the presence of Tirthankara symbols and cross-legged meditative depictions typically absent in Hindu deity sculptures."
He elaborated, “As Jains believe in 24 Tirthankars, the icons associated with these Tirthankaras are found across the statues of Jain gods and goddesses,” pointing to miniature Tirthankara figures on the statue. The museum's catalog describes it as a
"standing figure of a Jain Vidya Devi carved in white marble, four-armed, holding a rosary and a small book,"
aligning with Jain traditions.
Rajbhar sought reliefs including permission for Jain worship, repatriation of Jain idols from London, establishment of a Jain trust for site management, and revival of a Jain Gurukul—portraying the site as a historical Jain learning center rather than an exclusive temple.
Court's Observations and Procedural Notes
The Bench sought clarifications on the nature of claims: whether asserting the site as a full Jain temple or merely recognizing artifacts. When Rajbhar referred to it as a "Jain Gurukul," the judges queried the distinction between a temple and educational institution, stressing the need for "clear documentary evidence" to establish Jain temple status.
Addressing , Rajbhar noted prior filings refiled per procedure and invoked observations allowing connected matters. He also secured permission for personal appearance. The Bench listed reliefs as primarily seeking recognition of Jain associations and prayer rights, not exclusive ownership.
Other Submissions: State Enters the Fray
, for the state, began outlining the dispute's history from , referencing Ayodhya judgment principles on faith and belief. He will continue tomorrow. Prior Centre arguments invalidated the notification.
Legal Analysis: Secularism Meets Multi-Faith Claims
This hearing tests core constitutional tenets.
guarantees freedom of religion, subject to public order, while
protects denominational rights. The Preamble's secular commitment mandates equal treatment, as Rajbhar stressed:
"India’s constitutional commitment to secularism and fraternity required recognition of all communities historically associated with the site."
However, the 1991 , freezes religious character as on , potentially barring new claims. Yet, administrative orders like ASI's arrangement invite scrutiny under equality. ASI's role as a neutral expert, pivotal post-Ayodhya ( ), faces bias allegations, echoing Gyanvapi survey critiques.
Jain intervention parallels the Ram Lalla Virajman suit, where deity rights transcended human litigants, but here emphasizes artifacts over title. Salman Khurshid's prior citation of Ram Lalla underscores evolving debates.
Potential Impacts on Legal Practice and Justice System
For legal professionals, this signals rising third-party claims in religious disputes, straining judicial resources and delaying resolutions. It may prompt stricter ASI protocols for multi-faith documentation, influencing surveys at Mathura, Sambhal. Repatriation demands revive colonial artifact battles, intersecting heritage law.
Practitioners in constitutional litigation must navigate faith-evidence balances, with Ayodhya's "" potentially favoring . Secularism's operationalization—equal access vs. frozen character—could reach SC, shaping post-1991 jurisprudence.
Broader justice system impacts include heightened communal tensions, necessitating robust objection-hearing mechanisms per SC directives. For ASI, it underscores impartiality mandates, possibly leading to legislative reforms.
Looking Ahead: A Complex Path Forward
As hearings resume, the faces a pivotal moment in reconciling history, faith, and law at Bhojshala. Jain claims, if substantiated, could redefine access paradigms, but evidentiary hurdles loom. This evolving saga underscores India's pluralistic challenges, where heritage sites embody layered legacies demanding equitable adjudication.
(Word count: approximately 1420)
