Bhojshala Case: MP High Court Rejects Arguments Claiming Disputed Site Is Jain Temple

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the disputed historical site at Bhojshala is a Hindu Temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while rejecting the arguments of the petitioners belonging to the Jain Community claiming the site to be a Jain Temple.

The division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi observed,

"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 rejected the contention that the disputed structure should be recognised as a Jain Temple merely because certain idols recovered during the excavation were claimed to belong to the Jain Heritage. 

The argument was principally advanced based on statutes allegedly linked to Jain traditions, particularly a figure identified by some petitioners as "Ambika" or "Jain Vidyadevi". However, the court held that these claims lacked sufficient historical, archaeological, and architectural support. 

One of the primary arguments presented was that the idol recovered during excavation, now allegedly preserved in the British Museum in London, represented the Jain Goddess Ambika rather than the Hindu Goddess Saraswati. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the presence of a Jain Tirthankar in the image demonstrates a Jain religious association. 

The court, however, observed that neither historical literature, archaeological findings, nor reports of the Archaeological Survey of India supported the conclusion that the disputed site ever functioned as a Jain temple. Even if the idol were assumed to depict Ambike, the court stated that this alone could not establish the Jain character of the disputed premises. 

The court noted that the central issue was not merely the identity of a single idol, but whether there existed convincing material evidence providing that the structure itself belonged to the Jain religious tradition. On this point, the court found the evidence to be insufficient. 

The court further examined another statue described as "Amba or Jain Vidyadevi", whose photographs were reproduced. The statue contained iconographic features such as a small book in the hand of the deity, a characteristic commonly associated with Saraswati, the goddess of knowledge. 

The court noted that Saraswati is worshipped not only in Hindu traditions but also among Jains as a deity associated with learning and wisdom. Thus, the existence of such an idol could not conclusively prove exclusive Jain ownership or usage of the site, it said. 

Additionally, the court noted that the statue included smaller accompanying figures, including a seated asctic or Tirthankara in Padmasana posture. The court observed,

"Jainism and Hinduism are not distinct entities... both faiths have evolved side by side since ancient times, worshipping the same supreme being... 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". 

As an example, the court referred to a Jain temple in Ratlam in Madhya Pradesh, where Hindu deities such as Shiva and Ganesh are also worshipped. 

"the presence of a Jain Tirthankara or a ―Sadhak‖ or ascetic seated in ―Padmasana‖ in the background of the Hindu statue of goddess ―Saraswati‖ is entirely natural, given that Jainism is, in fact, a branch of Hinduism", the court stated. 

The court further relied upon statutory references, including Section 2(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 2005, noting that Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs are treated with a broader legal framework applicable to Hindus for certain civil matters. On this basis, the court reasoned that the discovery of Jain-associated figures within disputed premises did not necessarily alter the essential religious character of the site. 

"Thus, it can easily be held that the idol which was recovered in excavation and is claimed to be in British Museum in London is of goddess Saraswati. Shri Dinesh P. Rajbhar – counsel for petitioner in WP No.8986/202 to be the representative of Jain community in his petition claimed that said statue is of Ambika of Jain heritage as in one of the images 'Theerthankar' has also seen, however, none of the historical, archaeological and ASI survey indicate that the disputed area was a Jain temple. 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". 

Thus, with regard to the reliefs sought by the Jain petitioners to bring back the idols placed in British Museum of London, the court stated; 

"So far the relief claimed by the petitioners to bring back the Pratima of goddess Saraswati from London Museum, UK and re-establish same within the Bhojshala complex, the petitioners in WP No.10497/2022 and WP No.10484/2022 have already made number of representations to the Government of India, the Government of India may consider their representations to bring back the Pratima of goddess Saraswati from London Museum and re-establish the same within the complex". 

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