Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Muslims' Appeals Against Bhojshala Temple Verdict, Declines To Allow Namaz There 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 exchangeAs 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...

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Muslims' Appeals Against Bhojshala Temple Verdict, Declines To Allow Namaz There In Interim

Debby Jain

The Court directed the State Government to give an open space adjacent to the site for Muslims to offer Friday namaz.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Muslims' Appeals Against Bhojshala Temple Verdict, Declines To Allow Namaz There In Interim

Debby Jain

The Court directed the State Government to give an open space adjacent to the site for Muslims to offer Friday namaz.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers