Summary of this article
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that Bhojshala in Dhar is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, citing historical records and continuity of Hindu worship at the site.
To protect the religious rights of Muslims, the Court said the community may apply for suitable land in Dhar district for the construction of a mosque.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a landmark ruling on the long-running Bhojshala dispute, has declared that the contested historical site in Dhar is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati.
The verdict settles a decades-old battle over the religious character of the ASI-protected monument, claimed by Hindus as Bhojshala and by Muslims as the Kamal Maula Mosque.
Allowing writ petitions filed by the Hindu Front for Justice and others, a bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi said:
"We have noted the continuity of the Hindu worship at the site, though regulated overtime...We record finding that historical literature of the place establishes as a centre of Sanskrit learning associated with Raja Bhoj...it indicates the existence of Temple dedicated to Goddess Sarawsati at Dhar...Therefore, the religious character of the area is held to be Bhojshala with temple of Goddess Vagdevi Saraswati."
The dispute concerns the religious nature of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)-protected monument in Dhar district. The present proceedings arose from multiple petitions regarding the site's religious and historical character.
One of the earliest petitions sought to reclaim the site for the Hindu community and restrain the Muslim community from offering namaz there. Consequently, the High Court ordered a scientific survey of the site, which was temporarily stayed by the Supreme Court following an appeal by the Muslim community.
Later, the Supreme Court laid down a time-bound process to unseal the survey report, provide copies to all parties, and consider objections during the final hearing. A petitioner from the Jain community has also claimed that the disputed complex is a medieval Jain temple and gurukul.
After the controversy surrounding the Bhojshala complex intensified, the ASI issued an order on April 7, 2003, allowing Hindus to worship at the complex every Tuesday and Muslims to offer namaz every Friday. The Hindu side challenged this order in the High Court, seeking exclusive worship rights at the complex.
The Court has now quashed the 2003 ASI order to the extent that it restricted the rights of Hindus to worship within the complex and permitted the Muslim community to offer namaz there.
However, to safeguard the religious rights of the Muslim community, the Court permitted them to apply for suitable land within Dhar district for the construction of a mosque. The Court stated that if such an application is submitted, the State may consider it in accordance with the law.
The Central government and the ASI have also been directed to take a decision regarding the administration and management of the Bhojshala temple and Sanskrit learning activities within the property. The ASI will continue to oversee the overall administration of the site.
On the plea seeking the return and restoration of the idol currently housed in the British Museum in London, the Court observed:
"The petitioners have already made a 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 the London Museum and reestablish the same within the complex".
During earlier hearings, petitioners from the Hindu, Muslim, and Jain communities presented detailed arguments and sought exclusive worship rights over the monument.
Following its scientific survey of the monument, the ASI stated in its more than 2,000-page report that a massive structure dating back to the reign of the Parmar kings of Dhar existed before the mosque, and that the present disputed structure had been built using repurposed temple components.
The Hindu side argued that coins, sculptures, and inscriptions recovered during the ASI survey establish that the complex was originally a temple.
However, the Muslim side contended before the Court that the ASI survey report was "biased" and prepared to support the claims of the Hindu petitioners.
Rejecting this allegation, the ASI informed the Court that the scientific survey was conducted with the assistance of experts, including three from the Muslim community.
(with inputs from LiveLaw, PTI)
