No Record Of Saraswati Temple Demolition: Muslim Body Tells MP High Court In Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque Dispute
In the ongoing proceedings over Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute, Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society told the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday (April 29) that no historical record mentions destruction of a Saraswati Temple at Bhojshala— describing the narrative as a "hypothetical construct".The dispute concerns Bhojshala, an 11th-century monument protected by the ASI....
In the ongoing proceedings over Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute, Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society told the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday (April 29) that no historical record mentions destruction of a Saraswati Temple at Bhojshala— describing the narrative as a "hypothetical construct".
The dispute concerns Bhojshala, an 11th-century monument protected by the ASI. Hindus regard the site as a temple dedicated to Vagdevi, or Goddess Saraswati, while Muslims regard it as the Kamal Maula Mosque. Under a 2003 arrangement by the ASI, Hindus perform puja at the complex on Tuesdays, while Muslims offer namaz there on Fridays.
One of the PILs seeks a scientific review of the site, intending to reclaim the site on behalf of the Hindu community. Additionally, the petition sought a prohibition on Muslim community members from offering namaz at the premises.
In this context, the High Court ordered a survey of the site. However, this order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, Dhar. The Supreme Court, while allowing the survey, directed the High Court to unseal the report, supply copies to parties, and consider their objections at the final hearing.
During the hearing on Wednesday, Advocate Tausif Warsi appearing for the society first delved into the reliefs sought in the petitions, especially regarding the installation of idols, particularly the Saraswati Idol allegedly located in London. The counsel placed reliance on a communication from the British High Commission in consultation with the British Museum.
The counsel submitted before a division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi that the letter clarified that the sculpture in question was not Saraswati but a Jain Goddess. Quoting from the record, the counsel submitted,
"The Goddess at the British Museum is shown to be accompanied by a lion and a child... therefore, there is no doubt that the sculpture in the British Museum is of the Jain Goddess".
The counsel further stated that any belief linking the sculpture to Bhojshala was a misunderstanding, thereby negating the petitioner's claim for its return.
The counsel further focused on the historical records, noting that all historical records of Malwa during Khilji's reign include accounts of military campaigns and territorial expansions. The counsel argued that none of the records mentioned the "destruction of a Saraswati Temple" at Dhar. The counsel further emphasized that even the detailed accounts of the conquest and administrative appointments do not refer to the alleged demolition.
Regarding the presence of a place of worship at the disputed site, the counsel argued that the mere presence of a place of worship within a larger structure does not determine the character of the entire site.
The counsel further stated, "That every police station or any hospital, let's say these two public places, there is a temple. Place of worship. But that ordinarily does not mean that the entire hospital is a temple. Or that the entire police station is a temple".
In the last hearing, the intervenors in WP No.10497 and 10484 /2022 argued that the issue of title and ownership cannot be adjudicated in a public interest litigation (PIL).
The matter is now listed on Thursday.
Case Title: Hindu Front For Justice v Union of India WP 10497/2022 and connected matters
Antar Singh WP/6514/2013, Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society WP/28334/2019, Kuldeep Tiwari WP/10484/2022, Qazi Zakullah WA/559/2026
For the Hindu front, petitioner in WP No.10497/2022: Advocates Vishnu Shankar Jain, Vinay Joshi, Varsha Parashar, Harishankar Jain, Parth Yadav, Saurabh Singh, Mani Munjal Yadav, Utkarsh Dubey, Devendra Nagar, Vagish Parashar, Rohit Shukla, Shalini Joshi, Shivangee Parmar, Satyanarayan Dubey, Priyanka Sharma, Bhuvnesh Gupta, Lalit Namdev and Pradhumna Malpani
For Antar Singh WP No.6514/2013: Senior Advocate A.K. Chitale with Advocate Kartik Chitale
For Maulana Kamaluddin, respondent No.8 in WP No.10497/2022: Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid with Advocates Noor Ahmed Sheikh, Zishan Khan, Lubna Naaz, Azra Rehman, Tausif Warsi and Arshad Mansuri
For Union, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 & 6 in WP No.10484/2022, for respondent No.4 and 5 in WA No.559/2026, for respondent No.1, 2 & 6 in 1 WP-10497-2022 WP No.6514/2013 and for respondent No.7, 8 & 10 in WP No.28334/2019: Additional Solicitor General Sunil Kumar Jain with Advocate Aviral Vikas Khare
For Appellants in WA 559/2026 and Intervenor WP No.10497 and 10484 /2022: Senior Advocate Shobha Menon with Advocates N.A. Sheikh, Mohd Ikram Ansari, and Rahul Choubey
For Maharaja Bhoj Seva Sansthan Samiti, respondent No.9 in WP No.10497/2022: Advocates Vishwajit Joshi, Nena Mishra, Shreesh Dubey, and Surbhi Bahal
For Intervenor in WP 10497/2022: Advocates Syed Ashhar Ali Warsi, Poorvi Asati, Manan Sharma and Mohd. Hashim
For Maulana Kamaluddin, respondent no 8, in WP 10484 and 10497/2022: Advocates Noor Ahmed Sheikh and Mohd Ikram Ansari
For Kuldeep Tiwari in W.P. No.10484/2022 and for the intervenor in WP No.28334/2019 and in WA No.559/2026: Advocates Manish Gupta, Chandresh Gupta and Sahaj Choudhary
For Maharaja Bhoj Seva Sansthan Samiti, respondent no.9 in WP no.10484/2022: Advocate Aniket Naik
For State: Advocate General Prashant Singh with Additional Advocate Generals Nilesh Yadav, Rahul Sethi, Dhirendra S. Parmar, Ashish Yadav, Sonal Gupta and Deputy Advocate Generals Sudeep Bhargava and Shrey Raj Saxena with Government Advocate Surendra Kumar Gupta and Advocates Sahil Sonkusale and Viraj S. Jha