Bhopal/Indore: The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has redefined the legal status of the Bhojshala complex in Dhar by ruling that the site is a temple and that the Hindu community possesses an inherent right to worship there which was never lost to history.
In a significant judgment delivered on Friday, the division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi set aside decades of administrative compromises surrounding the disputed site.
The court observed that “the nature and character of the whole monument needs to be demystified and freed from the shackles of confusion” through the application of scientific archaeological evidence. A primary finding of the court focused on the historical continuity of the site and the uninterrupted religious association claimed by the Hindu side.
In a remark addressing the long-standing dispute over the use of the complex, the court stated that “the continuity of Hindu worship at the site through regulated practices over time has never been extinguished”.
This observation underscores the judicial view that even during periods of restricted access, the religious identity of Bhojshala as a temple remained intact.
Consequently, the court ruled that the previous Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) order dated April 7, 2003, which permitted Friday prayers at the premises, was fundamentally flawed. The bench remarked that the 2003 arrangement was “inconsistent with the established character of the monument” as revealed by modern scientific studies and archaeological findings.
The judgment relied extensively on the findings of the 2024 archaeological survey, noting that the presence of Sanskrit inscriptions and sacred structural elements such as the “Havan Kund” constituted significant evidence regarding the original nature of the site.
The court further observed that “scientific archaeological studies provide the most reliable basis for resolving historical disputes of this nature”.
In a directive aimed at the Union Government, the bench stated that it is a constitutional duty to “preserve and protect the ancient culture and scriptures” of the nation.
To this end, the court directed the government to make “every effort” to bring back the original idol of Goddess Vagdevi from the British Museum, linking the issue to the constitutional obligation that “the right to religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution is not infringed”.
While recognising the exclusive right of Hindus to perform puja at the site, the court also addressed the concerns of the Muslim community with a specific administrative suggestion.
The bench noted that in order to ensure “complete justice and maintain social harmony”, the state government may consider “allocating suitable alternative land” for a mosque if such a request is made by the community.
However, regarding Bhojshala itself, the court was categorical in its conclusion, stating that “the right to worship shall remain with the Hindu side” as the site is legally recognised as the property of King Bhoj.
The administration of the complex will continue to remain with the Archaeological Survey of India for the protection and preservation of the structural integrity of what the court has now officially acknowledged as an ancient temple and centre of learning.
The judicial proceedings involved several grouped petitions, including a major plea filed by the Hindu Front for Justice, which argued that the site was originally established in 1034 AD by King Bhoj as a grand temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati and also functioned as a Gurukul for Vedic learning.
The petitioners presented detailed evidence relating to the architectural and historical character of the site, arguing that the walls carried inscriptions of Sanskrit grammar in the form of Chitra Kavi and Vyakaran Chakra — elements they described as unique to Hindu temple architecture and traditional centres of learning.
They also referred to the presence of an ancient Jal Kund and a Havan Kund within the complex, contending that such features are not associated with mosque architecture and further support the claim that the site originally functioned as a temple.
The judgment records that Senior Advocate Shobha Menon and other counsel appearing for the Muslim side primarily challenged the maintainability of the writ petitions.
They argued that “the nature and character of the monument cannot be altered” and maintained that the “legal status was settled” through earlier administrative arrangements and orders.
The defence further contended that judicial intervention could “disturb communal harmony” and alleged that the archaeological survey report was “procedurally flawed”.
However, the court observed that “historical truth must prevail over administrative convenience”, ultimately rejecting the objections raised by the Muslim side while giving primacy to scientific findings indicating that the site’s “original religious character was that of a temple”.
(IANS)
