10 Reasons Why Madhya Pradesh High Court Declared Disputed Bhojshala Site As Hindu Temple
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the disputed Bhojshala site was originally a Temple cum learning centre built back in 1034 AD, and the existing structure was constructed by destroying the temple and using its remains.In its 242-page judgment, deciding the dispute between the Hindu and Muslim communities regarding the right to worship at the site, the division bench of Justice...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the disputed Bhojshala site was originally a Temple cum learning centre built back in 1034 AD, and the existing structure was constructed by destroying the temple and using its remains.
In its 242-page judgment, deciding the dispute between the Hindu and Muslim communities regarding the right to worship at the site, the division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi said, "the continuity of Hindu worship at the site through regulation over time has never been extinguished."
It therefore quashed the permission granted to the Muslim community to offer Namaz at the site and permitted them to approach the State for allotment of an alternative site to construct a Mosque.
Here are 10 reasons that weighed with the Court to declare the site as a Temple:
1. Evidence of preexisting structure
The Court heavily relied on the survey conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India to conclude that the existing structure at Dhar was built on a pre-existing temple structure associated with the Paramara Period. It was observed that the survey was conducted by adopting a scientific method in a fair and impartial manner.
The Court proceeded to record brief findings of the report in its Judgment. It noted that the remains of the earlier structure still remain under the existing structure. It observed,
"Hundreds of large and small fragments of inscriptions found in and around the existing structure suggest that a number of inscriptions were fixed in the stone structure, giving it a different identity. Fragments of these inscriptions, sculptures, and architectural members suggest that superstructure of this stone structure was later modified and converted into mosque."
The Court further noted that the art and architecture of these pillars and pilasters suggested that they were originally part of temples. "For their reuse in the existing structure, figures of deities and humans carved on them were mutilated."
Moreover, Sculptures of four-armed deities were carved on windows, pillars and beams used in the existing structure. Images carved on these included Ganesh, Brahma with his consorts, Narasimha, Bhairava, Gods and Goddesses, human and animal figures. However, "as human and animal figures are not permitted in mosque at many places such images have been chiselled out or defaced," the Court said.
2. Evidence of the structure dated 10-11th century
Referring to the ASI report, the Court observed,
"From art and architecture of decorated pillars and pilasters it can be said that they were part of earlier temples and were reused while making colonnades of the mosque...The findings clearly state the existing structure is constructed over a pre-existing structure, whose remains still exist in site. This earlier structure was built with brick and later expanded with basalt stone dates back to Paramara period (10th–11th century CE)".
The court also referred to the surviving portions of carvings that had escaped destruction, noting that several kirtimukha carvings and deity depictions on windows and pillars remained comparatively well preserved.
One of the major findings relied on by the Bench concerned inscriptions fixed in the eastern colonnade, noting that a major inscription contained two Prakrit poems consisting of 109 stanzas each, attributed to Paramara ruler Raja Bhoj.
The court noted that the inscriptions reportedly began with invocations such as "Om Sarasvityanamah and Om Namah Shivay". It was also observed that all the Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions predated the Arabic and Persian inscriptions, indicating earlier occupation and use of the site by Sanskrit and Prakrit users.
Further, the court noted that the coins recovered around the site belonged to the Indo-Sassanian period, demonstrating that the site dated back to the Paramara dynasty. It noted, "Earliest coins found at the site are Indo-Sassanian which can be dated to 10th-11th century, when Paramara kings were ruling in Malwa with their capital at Dhar".
3. Evidence of the site being a Saraswati Temple and a learning centre
The bench noted that the evidence established Bhojshala as both a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati and a Sanskrit learning centre established by Raja Bhoj.
It referred to several historical publications, including Imperial Gazetteer of India 1908, which described the structure as Raja Bhoj's School that was later converted into a mosque.
Another publication of 1904 by the Royal Asiatic Society referred to the site as Raja Bhoj's Madrassa, which states, "The mosque, contiguous to Kamal-ul-din‟s tomb, is known among the Hindoo population as “Raja Bhoja ka Madrassa”, i.e. Raja Bhoja‟s School".
The bench also referred to G Yazdani's Mandu: The City of Joy of 1929, which described the structure as a mosque constructed from the remains of an earlier Hindu Temple.
The bench also referred to the Archaeological Review of 1972-73, which recorded excavations around Bhojshala yielding temple architectural fragments, Paramara Period pottery, iron objects and mutilated Vishnu sculpture.
The court noted that these findings supported the petitioner's claim regarding the existence of Saraswati Temple and the Sanskrit learning centre established by Raja Bhoj in 1034 AD.
4. Evidence that the Temple was demolished and a Mosque was constructed on it
The bench held that the present structure reflected clear evidence of adaptation and reconstruction using demolished temple material.
The ASI report stated, "Existing structure appears to have been made hurriedly with not paying much attention to symmetry, designs, material, etc. Although most of the superstructure is made of limestone but some parts of the earlier basalt structure, and one pillar base of marble were also reused".
It further noted, "A pillar decorated with niches in all four directions depict mutilated images of deities. Another base of a pillar also depicts a deity image in a niche. Standing images on two pilasters have been chopped off and are beyond recognition".
According to the bench, the architectural inconsistencies and mutilated carvings established that the temple components had been dismantled and incorporated into the mosque structure.
5. Absence of evidence showing Waqf property
The court observed that a mosque can be built on a Waqf property. However, no material had been produced to establish that the disputed land constituted waqf property. The court noted,
"No material suggests that the part of the land No.604 (Old No.313) is a Waqf property and the same was dedicated or could be dedicated to Waqf. It is imperative under Muhammadan Law that property must belong to waqif and the owner must belong to waqif and the owner must dedicate the property to the Almighty. Historical material placed before us could not show that waqf has been created and therefore, there can be no presumption regarding existence of a mosque in the disputed area which is prima facie established to be constructed as Bhojshala and temple of goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati) a place of learning Sanskrit language in 1034 AD".
6. Evidence that the Ailan of 1935 was invalid
The court further examined the Ailan of 1935, passed by the Dhar State, which stated the site to be a mosque. The court noted that the Ailan was an executive order predating the Constitution. Referring to Articles 13 and 130 of the Constitution, the bench held that,
"Article 13 invalidates laws inconsistent with the fundamental rights and defines law unless for the purpose of Article 13 itself. Article 130 is contextual and cannot automatically validate every executive order or notifications issued prior to the Constitution. Every order issued by the Princely Ruler survives as law only when it goes through the test as prescribed under the Constitution".
Thus, the bench examined the Ailan on the anvil of Articles 13 and 372 of the Constitution, noting that the order was contrary to the inscriptions, scriptures and continuity of official recognition.
"Even otherwise from the material which has been placed before us, the said order is contrary to the inscriptions, scriptures and continuity of official recognition which is clearly established the extent of a substantial pre existing hindu religious and educational structure associated with Bhojshala. Thus, the order dated 24.8.1935 cannot over-ride constitutional principles and cannot be treated as a binding legislative document".
7. Evidence that the site has been protected since 1904
The bench noted that the disputed site was a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, with effect from March, 18, 1904.
The court noted that Bhojshala was governed under the Monument Act of 1904, which was repealed by the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958, and therefore, the legislation that governs the premises in question is the Act of 1958.
8. Remains of Jain Idols do not conclusively prove a Jain Temple
The petitioners had argued that two idols were placed in the British Museum, which were recovered around the site by the British Government. The petitioners placed reliance on the idols and other inscriptions to argue that the temple belonged to Goddess Ambika, which possessed many similarities to the Hindu Goddess Saraswati.
However, the court noted that the presence of a Jain Tirthankara sitting in the background of a Hindu statue of Goddess Saraswati was 'natural', observing that Jainism was a branch of Hinduism.
The court also referred to the Hindu Marraige Act, noting, "The legal basis of this is established under Section 2(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and u/S.2(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 also where, Jainism and Budhism are considered to be part of Hinduism. Therefore, the discovery of a statue of a Jain Tirthankara within the disputed premises during the excavation conducted in accordance with the High Court's directives comes as no surprise".
Thus, the court held that there was no reason to disbelieve that the dispute site was a Temple of Maa Saraswati
9. Absence of evidence showing Jain Temple
The court noted that no inscriptions, records or structural material identifying the monument as exclusively Jain in character were not placed.
"even if accepting the submission of Shri Rajbhar – Advocate that the idol may be of Maa Ambika, his claim that the disputed area be declared to be Jain temple, cannot be accepted. Whether the idol is of Saraswati or of Ambika would not render much assistance to his submission that the disputed area was a Jain temple as we held that no material has been placed before us either by way of historical literature, architectural features or in ASI survey suggesting that the disputed area was a Jain temple", the court noted.
10. Evidence that idols placed in the British Museum were Hindu and Jain deities
The court noted that the name Vararucil was inscribed in the sculpture, who was an official in the Parmar Kingdom. He made two pratimas, one of Vagdevi and another of Ambika. The court held that both forms represent the divinity of Goddess Saraswati.
"The aforementioned other small idols are being claimed to be statues of Jain tirthankars, but there is no authentic evidence to support this. The idol of lord ―Ganesha‖ and the figure of Goddess Durga seated on a lion are clearly visible in the lower part of the Vagdevi statue".
Therefore, the bench held the site to be a Hindu Temple belonging to Goddess Saraswati. However, to balance justice between both the Hindu and the Muslim communities, the court held,
"In order to secure the religious rights of the Muslim community and to ensure complete justice between the parties, in case if the respondent No.8 (Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society) submits an application for allotment of a suitable land within the Dhar district for the construction of a Mosque or a place for prayer, the State Government may consider the said application in accordance with law for allotment of a suitable and permanent part of land in Dhar district to the Muslim community which may be represented either through the respondent No.8, appellant, interveners or a duly constituted Waqf body for the construction, administration of a mosque and associated religious facilities".
Case Title: Hindu Front For Justice v Union of India WP 10497/2022, Antar Singh WP/6514/2013, Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society WP/28334/2019, Kuldeep Tiwari WP/10484/2022 and Qazi Zakullah WA/559/2026