Back
Verdict Reserved: MP High Court Wraps Up Bhojshala Temple-Mosque Battle
In a pivotal moment for one of India's most contentious religious site disputes, the , presided over by Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi, reserved orders on , in a batch of concerning the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex. After days of arguments from top advocates representing Hindu petitioners, Muslim respondents, the Union government, and intervenors, the concluded hearings in cases like WP No. 10497/2022 ( v. Union of India ) and connected matters.
The 11th-century monument in Dhar, protected by the , lies at the heart of dueling claims: Hindus revere it as the Vagdevi (Goddess Saraswati) Temple built by King Bhoj, while Muslims know it as the Kamal Maula Mosque.
Roots of the Rift: From Pact to Modern Petitions
The dispute traces back decades. In , the princely state of Dhar issued a notification allowing Muslims to offer namaz on Fridays at the site, while Hindus continued puja on Tuesdays—a formalized by ASI in .
Tensions escalated with public interest litigations filed by Hindu groups, including (WP 10497/2022), seeking a scientific survey to affirm temple origins and bar namaz. Other petitions, like WP 6514/2013 by Antar Singh and WP 10484/2022 by Kuldeep Tiwari, echoed demands for Hindu reclamation. Muslim respondents, notably (WP 28334/2019), and intervenors defended the arrangement.
The court ordered a survey, but the intervened, permitting it while directing the high court to review the report openly amid objections.
Hindu Claims vs. Defense: Arguments Unpacked
Petitioners for the Hindu side, led by advocates like
and senior counsel
, hammered on archaeological evidence. Kuldeep Tiwari argued that Sanskrit inscriptions at the site
"clearly establish the remains of a Temple."
Jain community intervenors highlighted architectural parallels to Dilwara Temples in Mount Abu. They dismissed mosque claims, with one noting,
"no one shall have any misnomer in their mind, but in particular is that it is not a mosque."
Muslim advocates, including those for , countered fiercely. An intervenor stressed the Dhar State notification's enduring validity:
"Dhar state was competent authority at that particular point of time. So, at that particular point of time, Dhar state was a competent authority."
They invoked , which repealed the , but argued it did not extinguish pre-existing arrangements. No repeal document from ASI or the state was produced, they claimed. questioned temple proof outright.
The Union, via , challenged the notification's legal validity under modern law. The state and other intervenors, represented by and others, weighed in on historical and administrative aspects.
Scrutinizing History: Pre-Constitution Orders in Post-Independence Lens
Central to the fray was the gazette's fate post-. Intervenors argued princely states like Dhar held sovereign powers then, issuing orders with their own seals and ministries—untouched by later repeals. The 's prior directive on the survey report loomed large, urging the bench to consider objections before any final call. No binding precedents were dissected in open court during this hearing, but the debate evoked broader tensions in contexts.
Echoes from the Bench: Standout Statements
-
On Dhar's Competence
:
"Dhar state was having an authority to issue its own letter, having its own ministry, it was having its own authorities, its own seal its own jurisdiction."
-
Notification's Survival
:
"Till date, neither any document has been filed by ASI or Petitioner or State that this particular gazette of has been repealed or cancelled... the Sanctity of gazette still remains."
-
Hearing closure:
"Heard finally. ."
What's Next? A Ruling That Could Redefine Shared Sacred Spaces
With orders reserved, the nation awaits a verdict that could reshape worship rights at ASI sites. A pro-Hindu ruling might halt Friday namaz and validate surveys; upholding the order would reinforce historical compromises. Practical fallout includes potential appeals to the , impacting religious harmony amid rising temple-mosque sensitivities. For now, Tuesdays and Fridays proceed under ASI oversight, but the Bhojshala's future hangs in balance.
