MP High Court rules Bhojshala complex is Hindu temple, grants exclusive worship rights

The Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh high court on Friday ruled that the religious character of the disputed Bhojshala and Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar is that of a “centre of Sanskrit learning and Hindu temple dedicated to goddess Vagdevi/Saraswati”, while giving exclusive daily worship rights to the Hindu community and bringing the long-contested matter to a decisive close. The court also struck down a 2003 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) order that had restricted Hindu worship at the 11th century site to Tuesdays while permitting Muslim prayers at the monument on Fridays. The Union govt and the ASI have been directed to take over the administration and management of the site as a Bhojshala temple and centre of Sanskrit learning. The Muslim community has been offered the prospect of a separate, permanent piece of land elsewhere in Dhar district for the construction of a mosque. “The religious character of the disputed area of the Bhojshala complex and Kamal Maula Mosque is held to be Bhojshala with a temple of goddess Vagdevi Saraswati,” said the bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi in its 242-page order delivered on Friday after 21 days of arguments from petitioners, interveners and respondents. On March 28, two HC judges also visited the monument to take a first-hand view. The court also called upon the Centre to consider representations already made by the petitioners for the return of the idol of goddess Saraswati currently housed at the London Museum — and its re-establishment within the Bhojshala complex. The judgment disposes of a clutch of petitions that had long contested the terms under which both Hindu and Muslim communities had been permitted to use the site. The two principal petitions — filed by Hindu Front for Justice and others, and Kuldeep Tiwari and others — had been allowed. Petitions filed by Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, Qazi Zakullah and others, and Salek Chand Jain were dismissed. A separate petition filed by Antar Singh and others, which sought reliefs aimed at preventing conflict between the two communities over the use of the site, was disposed of without being decided on merits, the court noting that the character of the disputed area had already been conclusively determined. The court grounded its findings in archaeological evidence, historical literature, and survey reports examined through the framework of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Drawing on principles from the Ayodhya case, the court held that archaeology draws on multidisciplinary and trans-disciplinary approaches, and that interpreting archaeological evidence calls not merely for technical analysis but for accumulated wisdom, experience, and considered judgment — on that basis, it held that it could safely rely on the ASI’s conclusions. Historical literature placed before the court, the bench recorded, established the character of the disputed area as a Bhojshala (centre of learning) associated with Raja Bhoj of the Parmar dynasty, with architectural references and literary material from that period indicating the existence of a temple dedicated to goddess Saraswati at Dhar. “We have noted the continuity of Hindu worship at the site, though regulated worship over time, which has never been extinguished,” the bench observed. On the constitutional dimension, the court held that every govt carries an obligation to ensure the preservation and protection of ancient monuments and structures of archaeological and historical importance — including temples — as well as the sanctum sanctorum and deities of spiritual significance. This obligation, it held, extends to sanctioning funds for basic amenities to pilgrims, arrangements for shelter, maintenance of law and order, and preservation of the purity and character of the deity, all backed by the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. In its specific directions, the court declared the disputed area a protected monument under the 1958 Act with effect from 18th March 1904. The ASI is to retain full supervisory control over the preservation, conservation, and regulation of religious access at the site, and is to continue its overall administration and management of the property under the Act. The court noted that the case had been argued with dignity and restraint in a congenial and harmonious atmosphere, reflecting the finest traditions of the legal profession.