Adina Mosque-Adinath Temple Dispute Lands In Calcutta High Court, Plea Claims Site Is 'Full Of Hindu Deities'

A PIL has been moved before the Calcutta High Court claiming that the Archaeological Survey of India has wrongly characterised Adinath Temple in State's Malda District as the Adina Mosque, despite the alleged presence of Hindu Deities at the site.

The plea filed by Advocate Hari Shankar Jain seeks a direction on the ASI to revisit and determine the religious character of the protected monument, and meanwhile permit members of the Hindu community to perform pooja and worship at the site.

When the matter was taken up today, the division bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen wondered whether ASI has the power to revisit the characteristics of a religious site once it had already been characterised.

The bench observed that the prayers for worship and change of nomenclature were consequential reliefs and that the principal relief sought was regarding determining the religious character of the monument. 

"Unless this religious character is determined, no directions can be issued", the court orally stated. 

The petitioner relied on Section 16(1) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958, contending that it casts a duty on the ASI to determine the religious character of the protected monument. 

Section 16(1) stipulates that a protected monument maintained by the Central Government which is a place of worship or shrine shall not be used for any purpose inconsistent with its character.

The Petitioner insisted that the present usage of the site as a mosque amounts to purpose "inconsistent" with its character.

The bench however asked the petitioner to highlight where the statute imposed an obligation on ASI to revisit or re-determine a character already notified. It orally remarked, 

"If there is a notification that you are praying for setting aside a notification, it means they have already determined a character...they have already determined the character, and therefore this is the notification. Where section 16 permits them to again review a decided issue". 

In response, the petitioner argued that the character was wrongly determined, asserting that when the monument was first notified in 1916 under the Act of 1904, the religious character was never examined. 

The petitioner claimed that the site was 'full of Hindu deities' at the time, and this position had been acknowledged in replies given on the floor of the Parliament, particularly in the Rajya Sabha. 

Noting that the alleged Parliamentary replies and supporting materials were not on record, the bench directed the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit. It ordered,

"The petitioner prays for time and is granted 10 days' time to file a supplementary affidavit to support the documents, which, in his opinion, are an answer to the questions in the parliament. List after 15 days. February 10, 2026". 

The controversy surrounding Adina Monument gained public attention in October 2025, when Indian Cricketer and Trinamool Congress MP Yusuf Pathan visited the Mosque and posted about it on Twitter (Now 'X'). In response, the BJP West Bengal social media handle issued a correction, asserting that the structure was in fact Adinath Temple.

Case Title: Hari Shankar Jain v Union of India [WPA(P)/4/2026]