The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday ordered the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to complete a survey of the Bhojshala Temple and Kamal Maula Mosque complex in the Dhar district within six weeks. The court pointed out the necessity to reveal and clarify the nature and character of the complex, liberating it from the prevailing confusion.
The ASI-protected site is perceived by Hindus as a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati (Saraswati), while Muslims consider it the location of the Kamal Maula Mosque. Hindus perform puja at the complex on Tuesdays, while Muslims offer namaz on Fridays as per a 2003 arrangement.
What Does Court Mandate Says?
Instructing a comprehensive scientific exploration, survey, and excavation of the Bhojshala complex, a panel comprising Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Devnarayan Mishra asserted the imperative need to determine and liberate the monument’s “nature and character” from the perplexity that currently surrounds it. The judges highlighted that the Central government, responsible for maintaining the monument, must demystify its characteristics due to the prevalent’mystery’, which has led to escalating controversies.
The court mandated the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to establish an expert committee charged with conducting a thorough scientific investigation, survey, and excavation using the latest methods and techniques. It is expected of the committee to submit its findings within six weeks.
Additionally, the ASI was ordered to open sealed rooms and halls within the complex, creating a complete inventory of every artifact, idol, deity, or structure for scientific investigation afterwards.
Arguments From Hindu Side
The Hindu Front for Justice, the petitioners in this case, contends that the Kamal Maula Mosque was constructed during the reign of Alauddin Khilji in the 13th and 14th centuries, through the destruction and dismantling of ancient structures of previously built Hindu temples.
Assistant Solicitor General Himanshu Joshi, appearing for the ASI, countered this argument by asserting that the ASI had not considered the 1902-03 report prepared by the then-existing expert body in the 2003 case. The Bhojshala Temple of Vagdevi was identified as a significant Gurukul and temple of Vedic learning and studies by this historical report.
Arguments From Muslim Side
Dhar’s Shahar Qazi, Waqar Sadiq, expressed the intention of the mosque’s management to challenge the High Court’s ruling in the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Ajay Bagadia, representing the Muslim side, cited a 2003 case that had been dismissed by the Jabalpur Bench of the High Court. Bagadia contended that the ASI’s stance was influenced by the government and urged the court to see through the apparent bias in favor of the Bhojshala Vagdevi Temple, which goes against the interests of Muslims who have been praying there for years.
The various arguments
The court’s order came as the petitioners, while putting up the interlocutory application, argued that it was the statutory duty of the ASI to conduct the survey.
The petitioners also submitted documents and photographs to support their claim that there were yantras and Sanskrit shlokas (inscriptions) on the floor, pillars and walls of the complex, which had been “deliberately defaced and scratched by visitors from other communities and religion”.
According to the documents used by the petitioners, the mosque was built by destroying and dismantling the ancient structures of previously constructed Hindu temples.
This construction of the mosque on the pre-existing Bhojshala temple took place during the reign of Alauddin Khilji at the turn of the 13th-14th century. Subsequently, the Kamal Maula Mosque was constructed during the regime of Mehmood Khilji (II) sometime in 1514. Even the study reports of the ASI prepared from time to time have stated that originally constructed Bhojshala and Vagdevi temple was destroyed/dismantled to install and construct a mosque at the instance of Islamist rulers and forces,” the petitioners argued.
In this backdrop, the petitioners told the court that it was the duty of the ASI under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, to ascertain the true character, nature and form of the premises in question.
Ajay Bagadia, senior counsel representing the respondents, objected to the maintainability of the interim application that required an ASI survey.
He contended that a similar issue had been raised earlier in a writ petition that challenged the ASI’s 2003 arrangement for worship at the premises, but the petition was dismissed by a single bench at the principal seat at Jabalpur as “non-maintainable and replete with disputed facts and submissions”.
Bagadia contended that once the said writ petition (filed in 2003) was dismissed by the single bench, another plea against the dismissal is pending before the division bench of the principal seat at Jabalpur, and thus no interference can be made.
Supporting the petitioners, Assistant Solicitor General (ASG) Himanshu Joshi, representing the ASI, contented that the order passed by the ASI director general in 2003 did not take into consideration the report prepared in the year 1902-03 under the aegis of the then existing expert body that “clearly pointed out the pre-existence of a Bhojshala temple of Vagdevi”, an important gurukul and temple of Vedic learning and studies.
According to the counter-affidavit filed by the state government, “revenue records throughout till 1935-1936 bore the description of the premises as Bhojshala & temple, vide survey number 313 old (604 new) of village Dhar”.
Bagadia submitted in court that “the state government and ASI for obvious reasons are taking a particular stand under the influence and pressure of the government of the day, and the court must pierce through the said obvious reasons of such a partisan stand in favour of the existence of Bhojshala Vagdevi temple against the interests of Muslims, who have been praying on the site and offering namaaz for years”.
He also argued that the current proceedings cannot be compared to the Ayodhya dispute.
However, the court allowed the petitioners’ application, ordered a survey, and listed the case for hearing on April 29th.
