Back
Supreme Court Directs MP High Court on Bhojshala Videography Objections
In a procedural yet pivotal intervention, the on , directed the to meticulously review objections raised by the mosque management during the Archaeological Survey of India's (ASI) videography of the disputed Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Dhar district. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant , Justice Joymalya Bagchi , and Justice Vipul Pancholi disposed of a filed by the , expressing "no doubt" that the High Court would adhere to while examining the electronic records alongside other objections. The Court refrained from commenting on the merits, leaving all substantive issues open for adjudication.
This development arises amid a long-standing contest over the 11th-century monument's religious character—revered by Hindus as the Bhojshala Temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati) and by Muslims as the Kamal Maula Mosque. The petition challenged the MP High Court's deferral of the Society's application seeking production of videography and colored photographs from the ASI survey, which the High Court opted to consider at the final hearing.
The Disputed Site: Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Complex
The Bhojshala complex, nestled in Madhya Pradesh's Dhar district, stands as a testament to India's layered historical narrative. Constructed in the 11th century by Parmar dynasty King Bhoja, it flourished for over 270 years as a premier center of Sanskrit scholarship, housing artifacts like Prakrit hymns on Vishnu's Kurmavatara and pillar inscriptions detailing Sanskrit grammar, tenses, and moods. Government records affirm that remnants of the original Saraswati temple—ornately carved columns, ceilings, and pillared corridors—are visibly integrated into the current structure's vast courtyard and western prayer hall.
Historical accounts trace its transformation: In , Alauddin Khilji's conquest ended Parmar rule, leading to desecration. By , Mahmud Shah Khilji II repurposed it as a mosque, erecting a tomb linked to Kamal Maula, despite records indicating the saint's death in . Protected by the ASI, the site has been a flashpoint for competing claims, with Hindus seeking year-round puja rights and Muslims maintaining Friday namaz traditions.
Genesis of the Legal Battle
The litigation ignited in when the filed a before the , invoking . Petitioners urged declaration of the site's temple status, round-the-clock Hindu worship, revocation of Muslim namaz permissions, and repatriation of Vagdevi idol from London's museum (installed in , removed by British in ). The High Court issued notice, treating it as a .
In , the Supreme Court mandated a time-bound ASI scientific survey sans excavations. The 98-day probe, culminating in a report, concluded:
"Based on scientific investigations, surveys and archaeological excavations conducted, study and analysis of retrieved finds, study of architectural remains, sculptures, and inscriptions, art and sculptures, it can be said that the existing structure was made from the parts of earlier temples."
Interim reliefs included permissions for Hindu prayers (sunrise to sunset) and Muslim namaz (1-3 PM) on Basant Panchami.
The ASI Scientific Survey
Directed by the MP High Court, the ASI survey incorporated videography with both parties present, as per SC mandates. However, the alleged violations: simultaneous digging at four sites with limited access (only two representatives allowed), contravening the no-excavation order. These objections—numbered 6-8 beyond the report's listed 1-5—were captured on video, forming the crux of their demand for immediate production.
, representing the Society, argued:
"Your lordships directed videography...the presence of both sides will be established. All we need is videography to be handed over in colored pictures...They were doing the survey in four places at the same time and only two people were allowed, and so we couldn't be everywhere."
He warned that evidence of excavations could "change the whole picture," urging no haste on maintainability.
Opposing, for Hindu Front countered that the High Court had not rejected the plea but deferred it per SC's time-bound directive, with the matter listed imminently.
Petitioner's Grievance and Supreme Court Arguments
Aggrieved by the High Court's
deferring the application to final hearing, the Society approached the Supreme Court. Khurshid emphasized recorded video objections, including excavation claims, insisting:
"One of the issues is that Your lordships had said no excavation will happen. Now, our objection is that excavations did happen...Heavens wont fall in a week's time if we are given."
Justice Bagchi
clarified:
"You are saying the survey report lists 1-5 objections, but it does not list 6-8 objections. The videography will be played in court, and parties can raise objections about the correctness of the same. The report will include all electronic or documentary evidence annexed with the same."
CJI Surya Kant assured:
"We will ask HC to watch the videography and take care of whatever objections have been raised."
Bench Observations and Final Order
Disposing the SLP, the bench noted the survey report's supply and filed objections. The dictated order verbatim captured the essence:
"There is no dispute that the survey report was supplied and some of the parties have submitted their objections. It further appears that the ASI also conducted videography of the site, and during the course of the videography, the appellant raised certain objections. The HC has now, in deference to our order, passed the impugned to the effect that the appellant's application shall be heard at the time of final hearing. According to the appellant, he raised some objections which were recorded in video. We have no doubt that after seeing the video, the High Court will consider the objections of parties in accordance with , including those found recorded in videography. Nothing is expressed on merits. All issues are left open."
Echoing this, the Court stated:
"We have no reason to doubt that the High Court will, after seeing the videography, consider objections of either parties as per
. We have not expressed any opinion on merits. Everything is open to be taken up at the High Court."
appeared for respondents alongside Jain.
's Parallel Proceedings
Concurrently, on , Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi at Indore Bench allowed interventions, permitted government replies from connected matters, and directed final objections per January 22 order's para 9(ii)-(iii). The bench announced a pre-next-hearing site visit and fixed , for final arguments. of noted most objections filed, with extensions granted.
Legal Implications: Natural Justice in Religious Disputes
This SC directive underscores a commitment to procedural equity in hyper-sensitive religious character determinations, potentially under the . By mandating videography review, it elevates electronic evidence's role, compelling courts to confront real-time objections— a safeguard against survey biases. The no-merits caveat preserves High Court's primacy, mirroring SC's approach in Gyanvapi and Mathura, prioritizing expedition without prejudice.
For litigators, it signals aggressive pursuit of interim electronic records; for ASI, rigorous documentation; judicially, it affirms site inspections and natural justice () in PILs.
Historical and Cultural Significance
Beyond law, Bhojshala evokes cultural loss: from scholarship hub to contested relic. Recovered inscriptions highlight its pedagogical glory, contrasting with later conversions amid invasions—a microcosm of syncretic yet strife-torn heritage.
Looking Ahead
With MP HC poised for site visit and April 2 hearing, the dispute edges toward resolution on the ASI report's fate. Whether videography reveals excavation lapses or validates temple origins remains open, but SC's nudge ensures fairness prevails.
(Word count: approximately 1,650)
