NewKerala.com

Bhojshala Dispute: Hindu Side Argues Site is Saraswati Temple in Court

The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has commenced day-to-day hearings in the sensitive Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute. The Hindu petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, argued the site is an ancient temple to Goddess Saraswati built by King Bhoj, citing a 2000-page ASI report. They seek unrestricted daily worship rights, the return of a Saraswati statue from London, and a prohibition on Namaz at the complex. The court will hear all sides sequentially, with the next hearing scheduled for April 7, 2026.

Key Points: Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque Dispute: Court Begins Daily Hearings

  • Court begins continuous hearings
  • Hindu side cites ASI report
  • Argues site is 10th-11th century temple
  • Seeks daily worship, return of idol
2 min read

Day‑to‑day hearings begin in Bhojshala-Kamal Maula dispute; Hindu side asserts site is a temple

MP High Court starts day-to-day hearings in Bhojshala case. Hindu petitioners cite ASI report, claim site is ancient temple, seek worship rights.

"The disputed complex is essentially a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati and cannot be considered a mosque. - Vishnu Shankar Jain"

Indore, April 6

The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday commenced continuous and regular hearings in the long‑standing and highly sensitive Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute in Dhar district.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi conducted a nearly two‑hour hearing, during which Senior Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the Hindu petitioners, including Ashish Goyal and the Hindu Front for Justice, presented detailed arguments.

The Hindu side asserted that the disputed complex is essentially a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati and cannot be considered a mosque.

Advocate Jain argued that Bhojshala was constructed by King Bhoj in the 10th-11th century as a centre of Sanskrit learning and education.

He emphasised its deep links to ancient Indian architectural and educational traditions, supported by historical documents and structures.

Citing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) scientific survey report, a voluminous document exceeding 2,000 pages submitted following the court's 2024 order, the petitioners highlighted intricate carvings and sculptures on the pillars that indicate the site's ancient Hindu religious character.

They also drew the court's attention to a board installed in 1935, mentioning historical facts about Bhojshala, after which disputes allegedly intensified.

The lawyers further submitted that there is no historical evidence of a mosque at the site. They pointed out that even members of the Muslim community had earlier referred to it as King Bhoj's Madrasa (school).

The Hindu side demanded that the statue of Goddess Saraswati, currently preserved in a museum in London, be repatriated and reinstalled, while seeking unrestricted rights for daily Hindu worship and a prohibition on offering Namaz at the complex.

The Bench made it clear that all parties and intervenors would be given a full and fair opportunity to present their arguments and evidence in a sequential manner.

The next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday (April 7, 2026), when the other sides are expected to advance their submissions.

With the decision to hold day‑to‑day hearings, the long‑pending dispute, which has seen multiple petitions, is likely to move towards a significant judicial conclusion in the coming days.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
I hope the court ensures a peaceful and fair process for all sides. These disputes are so emotionally charged. The focus should be on historical facts and legal principles, not on inflaming passions.
V
Vikram M
King Bhoj's contribution to Sanskrit learning is legendary. If it was built as a centre of education (Bhojshala), that itself is a sacred purpose. The statue in London must be brought back to India. Our heritage belongs here.
S
Sarah B
As an observer, I find the historical aspect fascinating. A 10th-century learning center! But the legal demand to prohibit Namaz entirely seems extreme. Can a solution respecting both history and current practice be found?
R
Rohit P
The 1935 board is key. Disputes intensified after that? Shows how narratives change. Glad the court is doing continuous hearings. Let's get a verdict based on evidence, not politics. Bharat's ancient sites need to be protected.
K
Karthik V
Respectfully, while I want our temples restored, we must also ensure the process doesn't alienate fellow citizens. The argument that even Muslims called it a 'Madrasa' is interesting. Hope the final judgment brings closure and harmony.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50