Bhojshala dispute: Muslim side cites 1935 Dhar order, questions PILs in Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Muslim side in the Bhojshala Temple–Kamal Maula Mosque case told the Madhya Pradesh High Court that a 1935 Dhar State court order described the protected site as a mosque. Senior advocate Shobha Menon also challenged the admissibility of PILs seeking exclusive Hindu worship rights at the ASI-protected complex in Dhar district.

The Muslim side in the Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute told the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday that a 1935 order from the then Dhar State declared the 11th-century monument in Dhar district a mosque. The complex is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The Hindu community treats Bhojshala as a Saraswati temple, while the Muslim side calls it the Kamal Maula Mosque.

Senior advocate Shobha Menon argued the matter before an Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi. Menon spoke for an intervention application and a writ appeal filed by Munir Ahmed and others. The High Court has been hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6. These cases challenge the monument’s religious identity.

Bhojshala dispute and PIL objections in Madhya Pradesh High Court

Menon questioned two public interest litigations in the Bhojshala case. The petitions were filed by the Hindu Front for Justice, Kuldeep Tiwari, and another individual. They argue that Bhojshala is a Saraswati temple. They also seek a court order allowing worship rights only for Hindus inside the complex.

On admissibility, Menon said the dispute should not be treated as broad public interest litigation. Menon argued that it mainly affects a specific religious community. Menon urged the bench to assess the issue on legal principles. Menon also asked the court not to view it through a religious lens while deciding the case.

Bhojshala dispute and 1935 Dhar State Ailaan document

Menon placed reliance on what Menon described as an Ailaan order dated August 24, 1935. Menon said it was a legal notification or gazette. Menon called it a very important document. According to Menon, the Ailaan declared the disputed Bhojshala complex a mosque. Menon also said it directed that namaz would continue there.

Menon noted that Dhar was a princely state in Central India during the British Raj. Menon said it operated under the Bhopal Agency. Menon also highlighted contradictions in earlier stands taken before courts. Menon said the Madhya Pradesh government and the ASI had differed at different times. The ASI functions under the Union Culture Ministry.

Menon argued that shifting official positions cannot be accepted under law. Menon said such changes appear inconsistent and arbitrary. Menon added that the government must take a consistent approach in litigation. The High Court hearing will continue on Wednesday. The bench has been holding regular hearings in the matter as arguments progress.

With inputs from PTI