BREAKING| Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Muslims' Appeals Against MP HC Declaring Bhojshala As Temple, Declines To Allow Namaz In Interim

The Supreme Court today issued notice on petitions filed by various Muslim parties challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment, which declared that the historical Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex site in Madhya Pradesh's Dhar is a Temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati and prohibited the offering of namaz there.

However, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana declined the petitioners' request for an interim order restoring the status quo ante, under which Muslims were permitted to offer namaz on Fridays alongside Hindu worship on designated days.

"Let us not pass any order which can cause tension," the CJI commented.

The bench however directed the State to make available a separate open space, adjacent to the subject site, to the Muslim side for offering namaz on Fridays between 1 PM and 3 PM. The bench clarified that this arrangement is ad-hoc in nature, subject to the final outcome of the matter, and is without prejudice to the contentions of the parties.

Further, accepting a plea made by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi for the Muslim side, the Court directed that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) should not make any structural changes to the monument without obtaining the Court's prior permission.

The bench indicated that it will list the matter after three weeks for final hearing.

Courtroom exchange

As soon as the matter was taken up, CJI Surya Kant agreed to issue notice on the petitions and post them for final hearing.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, for the Muslim side, submitted that the primary issue was whether the factual disputes could have been settled in a writ petition. He argued that a status quo which existed for about 800 years was disturbed. While welcoming the CJI's willingness to hear the matter on the merits, Ahmadi submitted that the earlier arrangement existing since 2003 - which allowed Hindu and Muslim worship to continue in the site on designated days - must be allowed to operate in the meantime. "Now we are totally ousted," Ahmadi submitted.

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also for the Muslim petitioners, submitted that there was evidence of namaz performance in the site for at least 700 years. He submitted that the site was an "excellent example of communal harmony" as both Hindu and Muslim worship were permitted. Singhvi raised concerns over the reopening of historic disputes on religious sites.

"Fraternity and secularism cross-fertilise each other...something which has been continuing for years must be allowed to continue," Singhvi submitted. 

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the State of Madhya Pradesh, submitted that during the two months after the High Court's verdict, several developments have taken place. He expressed reservations about restoring the status quo ante. "Once you come after two months and seek status quo ante, administrative problems will arise," SG submitted.

Ahmadi submitted that the petition was filed immediately after the High Court's verdict. He added that the High Court, in all fairness, should have stayed the operation of the judgment, allowing an opportunity for the parties to approach the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, for the Muslim petitioners, said that there was an agreement between both the sides since 1995 to use the property as a composite religious site, and the 2003 ASI order permitted both sides to perform their rituals on designated dates. She questioned how a writ petition was maintainable on the issue of a title dispute. When the communities have an understanding among themselves, what is the need to disturb that equilibrium in a writ petition filed almost twenty years later, she asked. "If for generations together, there has been a mosque which dates back to 12th century, and there have been worships offered for at least 800 years, why should it be disturbed? After 800 years, to stop worship by one community, it will be too harsh," Arora submitted.

However, the CJI refused to pass any interim order. "Let us not pass any order which can create tension," the CJI said.

"Both sides must have patience," the CJI appealed, assuring that the matter will be fixed for final hearing before a bench very soon. The SG also welcomed the CJI's approach, saying that the situation is at present calm due to the efforts of the administration.

Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, for the Hindu parties, submitted that status quo ante cannot be sought now after the High Court has finally determined the issues. When Arora submitted that her petition was filed immediately, Krishnakumar replied that no urgent hearing was sought. The CJI also said that nobody mentioned the matter for urgent listing.

Ahmadi, in a last-ditch attempt to persuade the bench for an interim order, said that the High Court's judgment also acknowledged that it was used as a mosque for centuries, and the balance of convenience lay in favour of status quo ante.

The CJI said that the earlier interim arrangement was under operation when the character of the site was sub judice. But now, there is a judicial determination of the character, whether rightly or wrongly, the CJI pointed out.

The CJI then asked the State about the High Court's direction to consider allotting an alternate place for Muslim worship if they make a demand for it. "The Government is open to it," the SG replied.

Ahmadi however submitted that the site has a particular religious significance for the Muslim side, and an alternate adjacent site may not be an adequate relief. "We have been elbowed out, and we are sought to be presented with a fait accompli. In all fairness, is it proper to oust out one community, which has been there for many, many years?" he asked.

Singhvi submitted that on the next day of the High Court's judgment, the ASI issued a circular on Saturday granting the site for the exclusive worship of Hindus.

The CJI said that the parties should have been vigilant in approaching the Supreme Court at the earliest. "In some matters, even a day of delay can have serious consequences," the CJI said.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that the substantive directions of the High Court have been given effect to, and the argument that they were effected in "hot haste" was not a ground to order status quo ante.

Singhvi submitted that no idol has been installed, and the prayers are done based on a cardboard image. Arora submitted that there was historical evidence of an earthquake in Dhar in the 12th century, due to which everything was destroyed, and the mosque was built after that.

The bench also expressed reservations about the execution of the High Court's direction that the Government must consider bringing back the idol of Goddess Saraswati from the London Museum.

Background

The Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex has remained a contentious site for years, with both Hindu and Muslim communities asserting competing claims over its religious character. Hindus regard Bhojshala as a temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati), while Muslims claim it as the Kamal Maula Mosque.

Based on a report of the Archaeological Survey of India, the High Court on May 15 accepted the claim that the disputed site was a temple. While quashing a 2003 ASI circular which allowed both Hindu worship and Muslim prayers at the site on different days, the High Court effectively held that namaz cannot be performed there. The Muslim community was given the liberty to apply to the State for the allotment of an alternate place in Dhar district for the construction of a mosque.

The pleas filed before the Supreme Court challenge the High Court's findings concerning the character and usage of the disputed structure, contending that the order adversely affects the religious rights of the Muslim community. One of these has been filed by Qazi Moinuddin, an intervener in the proceedings in the High Court. Another is filed by Jebran Ansari (and others), who was also a participant in the proceedings before the High Court.

The petitioners contend that the High Court order is self-contradictory, insofar as the Court repeatedly observed that it was not adjudicating title of the property of the dispute area, however, in the operative part, declared the religious character of the site as Bhojshala with a temple of Goddess Saraswati.

They further assail the quashing of the 2003 ASI order (to the extent it allowed Muslim prayers and restricted Hindu worship), highlighting that it carefully balanced Friday namaz, Hindu worship, monument preservation, communal harmony and public order. The petitioners underline that the arrangement under the ASI order operated for nearly 2 decades and represented a long-standing coexistence repeatedly recognized by authorities.

Cases: QUAZI MOINUDDIN Versus HINDU FRONT FOR JUSTICE (REGD. TRUST NO. 976) AND ORS., Diary No. 32281-2026; MAULANA KAMALUDDIN WELFARE SOCIETY Versus HINDU FRONT FOR JUSTICE (REGD. TRUST NO. 976) AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 22119-22120/2026; JEBRAN ANSARI AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 33643-2026; HAJI MUNEER AHMAD AND ANR. Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 23490/2026