Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque Row | ASI Records, Inscriptions Show Temple Existed At Site: Hindu Petitioners Tell MP High Court

In the ongoing proceedings over the Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute, Kuldeep Tiwari, one of the petitioners, argued that the inscriptions found at the site clearly establish the remains of a Temple. 

During the hearing, Advocate Manish Gupta, appearing for Tiwari, in his rejoinder, argued that the inscriptions and historical records identify the site as a Temple rather than a school or Mosque. He referred to an Archaeological Survey of India's document, which demonstrates that the bricks collected from the remains date back to the 11th century, suggesting continuity of a Temple structure before the Mosque was built. 

Advocate Gupta, before the division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, also discussed the artefacts currently housed in the British Museum, noting that the inscription at the pedestal of a statue confirms that it was formally consecrated by King Bhoj, representing the Goddess Vagdevi, contrary to the claim that the idol was of the Jain Goddess Ambika. 

"This inscription clearly reads that the Statue is formally consecrated by King Bhoj, and in the second line, it says the statue is of Vagdevi... first jains claim that the idol is of Ambika but the description of statue clearly states its Vagdevi". 

Gupta, while concluding his arguments, claimed, "From this very site, as per Archaelogical Survey of India, the statue of Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu in ardhnareshwar form is found". 

Meanwhile, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for Hindu Front For Justice, in rejoinder, argued that the Place of Worship Act, 1991, does not apply to this site as it is protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958. He emphasized that the ASI was legally obligated to maintain the religious character of the monument, citing Section 16(1) of the 1958 Act. 

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

Jain also referred to December 12, 2024 order in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI, wherein the Supreme Court ordered that no further suits can be registered in the country against places of worship till further orders. Jain argued that this order was passed after the present petition was filed and thus, the bar on the institution of new suits would not apply in the present case.

Jain further argued that the Supreme Court had connected the present matter with the batch of petitions in the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case, and then remanded the matter to the High Court for adjudication. Therefore, this also shows that the Order of December 12, 2024, will not apply in this case. 

In the previous hearing, the Jain Community, who are also Petitioners in the matter, argued that the architectural features of the disputed site have similarities with the Dilwara Jain Temples located in Mount Abu.

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