Back
MP Declares Bhojshala Complex a Hindu Temple Dedicated to Goddess Saraswati
The has ruled that the historic Bhojshala complex in Dhar is a under the , with its firmly established as a Hindu temple of Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati). In a landmark judgment delivered on , Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi quashed key portions of a 2003 order that had restricted Hindu worship and permitted limited Friday prayers by the Muslim community.
The Core Dispute: Worship Rights at a Contested Heritage Site
The dispute centred on the religious identity and permissible use of the Bhojshala complex, notified as a since 1904 and later under the . Multiple writ petitions, including those filed by , Kuldeep Tiwari, and Salek Chand Jain representing Jain interests, challenged restrictions that confined Hindu rituals to specific days while allowing Muslim prayers on Fridays. Respondent parties, led by the , defended the site’s identity as the Kamal Maula Mosque, citing historical grants and continuous usage.
Historical Record and Archaeological Evidence Point to a Pre-Existing Temple
Drawing extensively from ancient texts, gazetteers, and inscriptions, the Court established that Raja Bhoj of the Paramara dynasty constructed the Bhojshala in 1034 AD as a centre of Sanskrit learning together with a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati. Archaeological Survey of India reports from 1902-03, 1905, and subsequent excavations consistently referred to temple remnants, Sanskrit grammatical inscriptions, and iconographic features incompatible with an original mosque structure. Material evidence recovered during the 2024 court-ordered scientific survey — including 94 sculptures, architectural fragments, and over 150 Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions — confirmed reuse of temple elements in later modifications.
Applying the Ayodhya Principles: Ten Guiding Rules for Disputes
In a significant constitutional development, the Court applied ten principles distilled from the ’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict. These principles included testing claims on the standard of , giving weight to continuity of faith and worship, recognising official records and archaeological findings as corroborative evidence, and treating the protection of as paramount. The Bench emphasised that must be determined through rather than exclusive reliance on later notifications or disputed executive orders.
ASI Survey Findings Remove the Mystery Surrounding the Site
Following a detailed order dated , the ASI conducted a comprehensive scientific investigation, including Ground Penetrating Radar surveys, stratigraphy analysis, and excavation across the monument and its 50-metre periphery. The resulting ten-volume report documented three architectural phases, with the present structure built over a massive pre-existing Paramara-period temple platform. Key findings included defaced Hindu deities on pillars, remains of earlier brick structures beneath basalt platforms, and a significant inscription linking the site to a Saraswati temple. The Court accepted the report after examining objections to the videography and methodology.
Rejecting the Ailan and Claims
The Court examined the Dhar State notification (Ailan) relied upon by respondents but held it to be an executive measure incapable of altering the legal character of a monument already protected since 1904. On the issue, the Bench noted the absence of any evidence that the property had ever been dedicated by a competent waqif or created on land, rendering claims of exclusive mosque status legally unsustainable.
Final Directions Issued by the Court
The quashed paragraph 3 of the 2003 ASI order restricting Hindu worship and permitted the restoration of daily rituals consistent with the temple’s established character. It directed the and ASI to establish an appropriate administrative framework under the while retaining overall supervision for conservation. The Court also observed that representations for retrieval of the Vagdevi idol from the British Museum may be considered in accordance with law.
Broader Implications for Heritage and Religious Rights
This judgment reinforces that scientific investigation and historical evidence must prevail when determining the of protected monuments. It affirms the of citizens to worship under while respecting the statutory mandate of preservation. The ruling is expected to guide future cases involving contested heritage sites across India.
(The complete judgment and scientific survey report are available on the website.)
