E-Paper
Disputed Bhojshala site declared temple by Madhya Pradesh high court
A bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi set aside the order that had allowed Muslims to offer prayers at the site.
The Madhya Pradesh high court has declared the disputed Bhojshala site as a temple dedicated to goddess Saraswati. The court also said the structure is a temple and that Muslims may seek alternative land for a mosque.
A bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi set aside the order that had allowed Muslims to offer prayers at the site.
As per the 2003 arrangement made by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Hindus and Muslims have continued offering prayers on Tuesdays and Fridays, respectively. The Hindu side had moved the high court seeking exclusive worship rights over the complex.
What MP high court said on Bhojshala case
The court said its findings were based on archaeological and historical material and were guided by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya verdict.
“We have considered the archaeological and historical facts, ASI notifications and survey report. On the anvil of the statutory provisions of the ASI act as well as on the basis of the precedent laid down in the Ayodhya case, and considering the nature of archeological evidence, the court can safely rely on the conclusions of such multi disciplinary studies by the ASI and the fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India,” the court said in its order, according to Bar and Bench.
The bench observed that a temple dedicated to goddess Saraswati existed at the location and said historical records identified the site as a major centre for Sanskrit education.
"There is a constitutional duty even to provide basic amenities to pilgrims, proper maintenance of law and order, and the preservation of the purity and pristine character of the deity. We have noted that the continuity of Hindu worship at the site has, over time, never been extinguished. We record finding that historical literature establishes the character of the disputed area as a centre of Sanskrit learning, along with literature and archaeological references indicate the existence of a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati," the bench said.
Inside the ASI report that Muslim side called ‘biased’
The dispute is linked to the religious identity of the Bhojshala complex, a protected monument under the ASI in Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh. Hindu petitioners claimed the site was originally a temple of goddess Vagdevi or Saraswati, while the Muslim side said it was a mosque. A Jain petitioner also claimed that the structure was a Jain temple.
Earlier, the court had asked all parties to submit objections, suggestions and recommendations regarding the 2,200-page ASI report prepared after a scientific survey of the 11th-century site carried out between March and June 2024.
The report said that the structure had been built using remains of earlier temples and that the mosque structure standing there now was constructed much later, as mentioned in an earlier HT report.
Representing the Hindu side, advocates Vishnu Shankar Jain and Vinay Joshi, along with petitioner Ashish Goyal, argued that Bhojshala was essentially a temple and sought exclusive Hindu worship rights at the site. Referring to the ASI report of 1904, which identified the idol of Vagdevi now kept at the British Museum, they argued that the structure lacked the key features of a mosque.
The Muslim side, represented by senior advocates Shobha Menon and Salman Khurshid, along with advocate Tausif Warsi, questioned both the findings and the process followed during the ASI survey. They argued that the religious character of Bhojshala had not been conclusively proven and said there was no consecrated idol or “Pran-Pratishtha” at the site.
The Muslim side also alleged a lack of transparency in the survey, citing unclear videography, the absence of carbon dating and the omission of a Gautam Buddha statue allegedly found during the survey. It also claimed outdated techniques were used and alleged that raised platforms were removed despite court directions.
