Bhojshala Case | Intervenor Tells MP High Court Dhar State Was Competent Authority To Grant Namaz Rights In 1935; Verdict Reserved

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (May 12) reserved orders in the batch of petitions concerning the Bhojshala Temple Kamal Maula Mosque dispute.

During the hearing, one of the intervenors submitted before the Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi that the Dhar State was a competent authority at the time and therefore, the arrangement passed by it granting worshipping rights to the Muslim community was also valid.

The submission was made in the backdrop of Union government arguing that the notification of 1935 issued by Dhar State giving rights to the Muslim community to offer namaz at the site was not legally valid.

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.

One of the PILs seeks a scientific review of the site, intending to reclaim the site on behalf of the Hindu community. Additionally, the petition seeks a prohibition on Muslim community members from offering namaz at the premises.

During the recent hearing, one of the intervenors in IA no 8938/2026 argued on the legal and constitutional validity of the 1935 arrangement. The counsel argued that the disputed Dhar site continues to remain in force and cannot be treated as extinguished merely because the Government of India Act, 1935, was repealed after independence.

He further stated, "Dhar state was competent authority at that particular point of time. So, it was having an authority to issue its own letter, having its own ministry, it was having its own authorities, its own seal its own jurisdiction. So, at that particular point of time, Dhar state was a competent authority".

Further, the counsel argued that Article 395 of the Constitution repealed the Government of India Act, but did not automatically invalidate laws, orders, or administrative arrangements already in force before the Constitution came into effect. The Intervenor argued that the ASI or the State provided no document showing that the 1935 arrangement relating to Bhojshala was ever repealed or revoked after the Constitution came into force.

He stated, "Till date, neither any document has been filed by ASI or Petitioner or State that this particular gazette of 1935 has been repealed or cancelled... the Sanctity of 1935 gazette still remains, that clearly that no one shall have any misnomer in their mind, but in particular is that it is not a mosque".

In the last hearing, Qazi Zakullah, one of the petitioners from the Muslim community, argued that there was no concrete proof that a temple existed at the disputed site.

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

Kuldeep Tiwari, one of the petitioners appearing for the Hindu community, argued that the inscriptions found at the site clearly establish the remains of a Temple.

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

Click here to read/download the Order