Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque Dispute: Jain Community Also Seeks Right To Offer Prayers At Disputed Site

In the ongoing proceedings over the Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute, the Jain Petitioners on Wednesday (May 6) argued that the architectural features of the disputed site have similarities with the Dilwara Jain Temples located in Mount Abu. 

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.

During the hearing, Advocate Dinesh Rajbhar referred to the order of the Archaeological Survey of India passed in 2003, which allowed only Hindus and Muslims to offer prayers at the site. He claimed that the disputed site also belongs to the Jain Communities. 

Advocate Rajbhar submitted before the division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi that, "The structure of the great Jain Temple at Mount Abu is also seen here in Bhojshala". 

He emphasized that King Bhoj, historically associated with the site, was a patron not only of Hindu scholars but also of Jain scholars and literature. According to him, historical records demonstrate Bhoj's support for multiple religious literatures, including Jainism. 

Further relying on the survey reports, he claimed that the idol currently situated at the British Museum is of the Jain goddess Ambika, which is also described as Jain Vidya Devi by the museum itself. 

He read the description of the idol, "Standing figure of Jain Vidya Devi carved in white marble. The Goddess is four armed and is holding a rosery and a small book". 

Examining the ASI's report, Advocate Rajbhar argued that the department had selectively attributed its findings of the site to a single religious tradition despite evidence of multi-religious elements. He argued that such an interpretation raises concerns about the objectivity of the survey process. 

He claimed that, "The survey report wanted to point out the inscriptions laid down at the disputed site, but the State just wants to point out that this belongs to a particular section. This raises doubt on part of the State". 

The bench, however, sought clarity on the reliefs sought by the petitioner, whether the site is being asserted as a Jain Temple or whether the argument was linked to identifying certain recovered idols as Jain Artefacts. It orally remarked

Advocate Rajbhar then referred to the site as 'Jain Gurukul'. The court at this juncture inquired the distinction between a Gurukul and a temple, noting that establishing the site as a Jain Temple would require clear documentary evidence. 

Advocate Rajbhar, while concluding his arguments for the day, clarified that the community is not claiming the site as a Jain Temple but seeks permission to offer prayers at the site and for the identification and preservation of Jain Artefacts. 

Advocate Rajbhar also sought permission to appear physically before the court, which was granted. He will conclude his submission in court tomorrow. 

Advocate General Prashant Singh, appearing for the State, commenced his submission by tracing the history of the dispute from February 2003 to the present proceedings. He also drew upon the Ayodhya Judgment, highlighting principles laid down by the Supreme Court for adjudicating issues involving faith and belief. He would also continue his submission tomorrow. 

In the last hearing, the Union government argued that the notification of 1935 issued by Dhar State giving rights to Muslims to offer namaz at the site was not legally valid. 

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