Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque Dispute: Centre Tells MP High Court 1935 Notification Permitting Namaz At Site Not Valid

In the ongoing proceedings over the Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute, the Union government told the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (May 4), that the notification of 1935 issued by Dhar state giving rights to Muslims to offer namaz at the site was not legally valid.

The dispute concerns Bhojshala, an 11th-century monument protected by the Archaeological Survey of India. 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 seeks a prohibition on Muslim community members from offering namaz at the premises.

In this context, the High Court had 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, Additional Solicitor General Sunil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Union and ASI, argued that the 1935 gazette notification issued by the erstwhile Dhar State, relied upon by one party to claim exclusive namaz rights, has no legal validity. 

The ASG submitted before a division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi that once the site had already been declared a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, the princely state lacked the authority to alter its status or confer religious rights. 

"In our case, this property was declared protected in 1904 itself. Since it was protected since 1904, there was no power for the Dhar estate to issue a notification". 

ASG Jain further referred to the historical records, including the 1903 district report and 1909 progress report, to highlight the role of the ASI in the maintenance of the site. 

He relied on the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1951, arguing, "After independence, this Act of 1951 was enforced. Section 2, I have referred to this Act to demonstrate that the legislature said that certain properties were given retrospective effect to the Act of 1904". 

Addressing arguments related to the authority of ASI to pass the 2003 order, ASG Jain argued that under the 1958 Act, ASI acts as custodian or guardian of the protected monument. Further, he stated, "In the reply of the State Government, the revenue entries show that in this effect from 1959, showing ownership of ASI. This order of ASI of 2003 was an interim arrangement". 

Concluding his submission, ASG Jain informed the court that tomorrow he will submit arguments related to objections to the survey. The hearing will resume on Tuesday. 

In the last hearing, the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society had contended that no historical record mentions destruction of a Saraswati Temple at Bhojshala— describing the narrative as a "hypothetical construct".

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

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