Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque ruling alters a fragile balance

By declaring the Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has drawn on principles that shaped the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case.

The court set aside a 2003 order of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that restricted the right of Hindus to worship within the complex to once a week and permitted prayers by Muslims on Fridays.

As in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid ruling, the court said the state government may consider earmarking land within the district for constructing a mosque or a place for prayers. A Saraswati idol has since been installed in the complex, and devotees have started worshipping at the site.

The assumptions and arguments that led the court to conclude the complex was a Hindu religious site have been disputed based on historical records, archaeological evidence, and other documents.

The ASI changed its position on the complex over time. Though the verdict is being appealed in the Supreme Court, a decision, going by precedents, will not be out soon. Notably, the apex court is yet to pass its judgment on the challenges to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991, which prohibits altering the religious character of places of worship from their status on August 15, 1947.

The MP High Court ruled that the ban did not apply to the Bhojshala dispute. In December 2024, the Supreme Court ordered a freeze on new suits and directed lower courts not to pass effective orders or surveys on pending matters. However, in January this year, it said the MP High Court could open the ASI’s sealed report regarding the character of the disputed complex. The High Court’s latest order is based on this report, which has also been criticised over the authenticity of its findings.

The spirit of the 1991 law and the 2024 order of the Supreme Court demanded that disputes over religious sites are not raked up, in the interest of social and communal harmony in the country. However, established legal positions seem to have been rendered dead letters now, enabling a reopening of such disputes. History and archaeology can be interpreted in diverse and even contradictory ways.

The interpretations often favour the interests of those in power. It is important for India’s secular fabric and the co-existence of its communities that these disputes are not allowed to deepen the divisions of society. It is also upon the courts to ensure this.