The Supreme Court issued notice on petitions filed by Muslim parties challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Bhojshala ruling. The High Court had declared the Bhojshala–Kamal Maula complex a Saraswati temple and prohibited offering namaz at the site.
The Supreme Court today issued notice on petitions filed by several Muslim parties challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling.
The High Court had held that the historical Bhojshala–Kamal Maula complex in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati and barred the offering of namaz at the site.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant allowed Muslims to pray separately near the site on Fridays between 1 and 3 pm, stating that the order was meant to prevent any escalation.
While refusing to issue an interim verdict on the main dispute. The bench further said the case would be taken up for final hearing in three weeks.
While refusing to issue an interim verdict on the main dispute. The bench further said the case would be taken up for final hearing in three weeks, the CJI said,
“These are sensitive matters. Let us not pass any order which can cause tension or affect the law and order situation,”
Alongside this, the Supreme Court directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) not to carry out any structural alterations to the monument unless it first obtained the court’s prior approval.
The dispute over the Bhojshala–Kamal Maula complex dates back decades. Hindus contend that the site was a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while Muslims maintain it is the Kamal Maula mosque.
Earlier, On May 15, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, relying on an ASI report, upheld the temple claim and also quashed a 2003 ASI circular that had allowed both communities to worship at the site on different days.
The High Court observed that literature and archaeological references supported the conclusion that it functioned as a center of Sanskrit learning with a temple associated with it.
The High Court also permitted the Muslim community to apply for an alternative site in Dhar district for the construction of a mosque. That decision was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court.
During the hearing on Tuesday, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the Muslim side, argued that the High Court overlooked certain disputed findings and failed to properly examine ASI officials. He said the ruling disturbed a status quo that had existed for about 800 years.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, responding, argued that if every such claim were accepted, “nothing would be left”
Singhvi said,
“India is a country which has layers of history. As Mahatma Gandhi said, an eye for an eye would make the whole world blind. This is a much larger issue,”
After this, CJI Surya Kant said the court would need to be cautious in what it decided, given the sensitivity of the matter.
The court said,
“As an interim measure and without prejudice to the rights of both sides… it is directed that separate space adjacent or near to the site is provided to the Muslims… The arrangement shall be ad hoc in nature subject to final outcome,”