SC Seeks Hearing on MP HC Verdict Declaring Bhojshala a Temple

Two caveat pleas have been filed in the Supreme Court by Hindu-side litigants seeking a hearing before any order on the MP High Court verdict declaring the Dhar Bhojshala a temple. The High Court ruled the disputed site is a temple of Goddess Saraswati and quashed the 2003 ASI arrangement that restricted Hindu worship. The court directed the government to consider bringing back the idol from a London museum while also allowing the Muslim community to request land for a mosque. The ASI will continue to oversee the protected monument's preservation and religious practices.

Key Points: Bhojshala Temple Verdict: SC Caveat Pleas Filed

  • Two caveat pleas filed in SC by Hindu-side litigants
  • MP HC declares Bhojshala a temple of Goddess Saraswati
  • ASI 2003 arrangement quashed restricting Hindu worship
  • Court suggests bringing back idol from London museum
3 min read

Pleas in SC seek hearing before any order on MP HC ruling declaring Dhar Bhojshala a temple

Two caveat pleas in Supreme Court seek hearing before any order on MP HC ruling declaring Dhar Bhojshala a temple of Goddess Saraswati.

"The religious character of the disputed area is held to be Bhojshala with a temple of Goddess Saraswati. - Indore Bench of MP High Court"

New Delhi, May 15

Two caveat pleas have been moved in the Supreme Court hours after the Madhya Pradesh High Court declared the disputed Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Dhar a temple, anticipating that parties from the Muslim side may challenge the verdict before the apex court.

The disputed site in Dhar has long been claimed by Hindus as a temple and by Muslims as a mosque. Pending adjudication, the State authorities had put in place a shared arrangement for religious practices while the site remained under the supervision of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which had also surveyed the complex.

First, a caveat plea was filed by Hindu-side litigant Jitendra Singh Vishen, who is also a petitioner before the High Court in the Bhojshala dispute, seeking that he be heard before the Supreme Court passes any order on any challenge to the High Court judgment.

Subsequently, another caveat petition was filed by the main Hindu-side petitioner in the matter through Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, similarly requesting that no order be passed without hearing the caveators in the event the verdict is challenged.

In its judgment, the Indore Bench of the High Court held that the religious character of the disputed monument was that of Bhojshala, a temple of Goddess Saraswati.

"The religious character of the disputed area is held to be Bhojshala with a temple of Goddess Saraswati," the Court said.

The High Court further quashed the 2003 ASI arrangement "to the extent restricting the right of Hindus to worship within the Bhojshala complex and also the order permitting prayer by the Muslim community."

The Court directed that the Union Government and the ASI would take decisions regarding administration and management of the Bhojshala temple, while clarifying that the ASI would continue to exercise overall control and supervision over preservation, conservation and regulation of religious practices at the protected monument under the ASI Act, 1958.

On the Hindu communities' plea seeking the return of the idol of Goddess Saraswati allegedly housed in a London museum, the High Court noted that several representations had already been submitted to the Union Government.

"The Government of India may consider their representation to bring back the idol of Goddess Saraswati from the London museum and re-establish the same within the complex," the Court observed.

At the same time, the High Court also sought to safeguard the religious rights of the Muslim community, observing that if an application is made for allotment of suitable land within Dhar district for the construction of a mosque or place for prayer, the State Government may consider the request in accordance with law.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

S
Sarah B
Interesting to see how the courts are handling these historical disputes. The shared arrangement from 2003 seemed practical, but I understand why Hindus see this as a temple. At least the court provided for alternative land for Muslims to pray.
P
Priya S
While I respect the Hindu sentiment, I'm concerned about the precedent this sets for other disputed sites. The ASI's role should be to preserve heritage, not pick sides. Let's hope both communities can coexist peacefully going forward.
K
Kavya N
Our history is complex—the temple existed before the mosque was built. The court has done a thorough job by considering both sides. The offer of alternative land for Muslims is a fair compromise. Proud of our judiciary! 🇮🇳
R
Ravi K
Another day, another temple-mosque dispute in court. When will we learn to share our heritage without conflict? The ASI should have been more transparent about their survey findings from the start. At least there's a clear direction now.
D
David E
As an outsider looking in, it's fascinating how India's legal system manages such sensitive religious issues. The caveat pleas show both sides are ready for a Supreme Court fight. Hopefully, wisdom prevails for all.
A
Arjun K
Waheguru ji! 🙏 This is welcome news for all

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

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50