Supreme Court Specifies Plot To Be Allotted For Friday Namaz Near Bhojshala

The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified its earlier interim order in the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula dispute by identifying a specific plot of land adjacent to the disputed Bhojshala complex where members of the Muslim community may offer Friday namaz between 1 pm and 3 pm.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order while hearing an application filed by the Muslim side seeking an appropriate alternate site for offering Friday prayers after the Madhya Pradesh High Court declared the disputed Bhojshala premises to be a temple. The High Court's judgment has been challenged before the Supreme Court.

Earlier, while declining to restore the earlier arrangement at the disputed site, the Supreme Court had directed the State to provide an alternate site near the Bhojshala complex for Friday prayers.

During today's hearing, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the applicants, submitted that although an application had been made to the Collector for allotment of land, the authorities had identified a site that was not sufficiently close to the Bhojshala complex.

He informed the Court that the allotted site was around 1.3 kilometres away by road and around 900 metres away in terms of radius. Ahmadi argued that several suitable parcels of land immediately adjoining the Bhojshala complex were available, all of which were waqf properties, and that the mutawalli had filed affidavits expressing no objection to the land being used for offering namaz.

Taking the Bench through a site map, Ahmadi identified four possible locations around the complex, including dargah land adjoining the premises, and submitted that any of them would satisfy the Court's earlier direction to provide an alternate site "near" Bhojshala.

He also criticised the Collector's refusal to allot any of the adjacent sites on the ground of possible law and order concerns. Referring to reports that certain groups had opposed offering prayers within 300 metres of the Bhojshala complex, Ahmadi argued that constitutional rights could not be curtailed because of threats of disruption.

"You can't yield to the wrongdoer," he submitted, adding that when Friday prayers had earlier been permitted, they were held in an adjacent area outside the disputed complex without difficulty. 

Justice Bagchi asked which of the identified locations had previously been used when prayers were permitted pursuant to court orders. Ahmadi responded that the applicants would be agreeable to whichever site the Court considered appropriate.

During the hearing, the Bench indicated that the plot marked in yellow on the site plan appeared suitable, particularly because it had a separate access road. Ahmadi confirmed that the applicants had no objection to that location.

Appearing for the State, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that the government's concern was limited to maintaining law and order and that it was not seeking to enter into the competing claims of the parties. He added that the State was willing to explore other acceptable sites, including private land, if necessary.

Justice Bagchi, however, observed that while maintaining law and order was the State's constitutional duty, the existence of religious rights could not be overlooked.

Clarifying its earlier order, the Bench directed:

"The earlier order is clarified to the extent that the Muslim community be permitted to offer namaz on Fridays between 1-3 pm at the land being Khasra No. ---which is stated to be dargah land. Copy of the site plan produced shows that it has an independent and separate access road and therefore the said site appears to be suitable. It is adjacent to the subject premises."

The Court also observed that its order would not prevent the parties from mutually agreeing to any other suitable site and directed the State authorities to make the necessary arrangements for Friday prayers.

Cases: QUAZI MOINUDDIN Versus HINDU FRONT FOR JUSTICE (REGD. TRUST NO. 976) AND ORS., Diary No. 32281-2026 (and connected cases)