The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a batch of appeals filed by members of the Muslim community challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment declaring the disputed Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Dhar district as a temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati).
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, however, declined to pass an interim order restoring the earlier arrangement that permitted Muslims to offer Friday namaz at the site, observing that no interim direction should be issued that could disturb public order or create communal tension.
The Court issued notice to the Madhya Pradesh government, the District Magistrate (DM) and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and listed for final hearing after three weeks.
While refusing to restore the status quo that existed under the ASI’s 2003 arrangement, the Bench directed the Madhya Pradesh government to provide an open space adjacent to the disputed monument for members of the Muslim community to offer Friday namaz between 1 pm and 3 pm.
The Court clarified that the arrangement was purely ad hoc, subject to the final outcome of the appeals and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either side. The Bench also directed that the ASI shall not undertake any structural alteration, modification or change to the protected monument without obtaining prior permission from the Supreme Court.
The Bench further ordered that no action should be taken at this stage that could disrupt law and order. Both Hindu and Muslim parties were advised to exercise restraint in the matter.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Muslim appellants, submitted that the principal issue was whether disputed questions relating to the religious character of the property could have been adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution without a full-fledged trial.
He argued that the High Court judgment had disturbed a long-standing arrangement under which both Hindu worship and Muslim prayers had continued for several centuries, and sought restoration of the pre-existing position pending adjudication of the appeals.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the site had witnessed the offering of namaz for several centuries and had functioned as an example of peaceful coexistence where both communities practised their respective faiths under the ASI’s 2003 administrative arrangement.
He argued that reopening historical religious disputes undermined constitutional values of secularism and fraternity and urged the Court to preserve the long-standing status quo until the appeals were finally decided.
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora also challenged the maintainability of the writ proceedings before the High Court, contending that questions relating to title and competing proprietary rights could not be conclusively determined in writ jurisdiction.
She submitted that the 2003 ASI order had successfully balanced religious practices, conservation of the protected monument and maintenance of public order for over two decades, and questioned the need to disturb that arrangement after such a long period. She further argued that the High Court itself had observed that it was not adjudicating title, yet proceeded to declare the religious character of the monument.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, opposed restoration of the earlier arrangement and submitted that substantial administrative steps had already been taken following the High Court judgment. He argued that restoring the previous position after nearly two months would create serious administrative complications and disturb the prevailing law and order situation.
The State also informed the Court that it remained willing to consider allotting separate land to the Muslim community in accordance with the High Court’s directions.
Appearing for the Hindu parties, Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar opposed the grant of interim relief, submitting that once the High Court had finally adjudicated the issues before it, the earlier interim arrangement could not automatically be revived. He also pointed out that the petitions had not been urgently mentioned immediately after the High Court judgment.
The Supreme Court declined to restore the earlier arrangement, observing that the position prevailing before the High Court judgment existed only while the dispute regarding the religious character of the monument remained sub-judice.
The Bench noted that the High Court had since rendered a judicial determination on the issue, irrespective of whether that finding would ultimately withstand appellate scrutiny. The Court also observed that the substantive directions of the High Court had already been implemented and that this by itself did not justify restoring the earlier status quo.
During the proceedings, the Bench also expressed reservations regarding the implementation of one of the High Court’s directions asking the Central government to consider bringing back the idol of Goddess Saraswati from the London museum for reinstallation at the disputed complex.
The dispute concerns the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex, an ASI-protected monument in Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh. The Hindu community claims the site as Bhojshala, a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati established during the reign of Raja Bhoj, while the Muslim community identifies it as the Kamal Maula Mosque where namaz has been offered for centuries.
On May 15, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, relying extensively on the ASI’s archaeological survey and historical material, held that the religious character of the disputed monument was that of Bhojshala, a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati. The High Court quashed the ASI’s April 7, 2003 administrative order that had permitted Hindus to worship on specified days and Muslims to offer Friday namaz.
It also authorised the Centre and the ASI to determine the administration and management of the protected monument and permitted the Muslim community to approach the State Government for allotment of alternative land in Dhar district for construction of a mosque.
The appeals before the Supreme Court challenge the High Court’s findings regarding the religious character and use of the monument. The appellants contended that the judgment is legally inconsistent because, while observing that it was not deciding questions of title, it nevertheless declared the religious character of the disputed structure.
They further argued that the High Court erred in setting aside the ASI’s 2003 arrangement, which had maintained communal harmony, regulated religious practices of both communities and balanced heritage conservation with constitutional guarantees of religious freedom for more than two decades.
The post Bhojshala Kamal Maula dispute: Supreme Court agrees to hear Muslim side appeals appeared first on India Legal.