Senior counsel tells Indore bench that historic “Ailan” declared site a mosque and allowed namaz; Hindu petitioners maintain it is Saraswati temple
INDORE/DHAR — The long-running dispute over the Bhojshala–Kamal Maula Masjid site in Dhar district came up for hearing again in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where the Muslim side presented historical records to support its claim.
Appearing before the Indore bench, senior advocate Shobha Menon argued that a 1935 declaration by the then Dhar princely state court had recognised the disputed structure as a mosque. She made the submission while supporting an intervention plea and writ appeal filed by Munir Ahmad and others from the Muslim community.
“The 1935 ‘Ailan’ clearly records the site as a mosque and allows the continuation of namaz there,” Menon told the court, calling the document a “very important legal record”.
The matter was heard by Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Tuesday, 28 April. The high court has been hearing a set of petitions and a writ appeal related to the site since early April.
The Bhojshala complex, protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), remains at the centre of a dispute between two communities. Hindu petitioners claim it is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati and have sought exclusive rights to perform worship at the site. The Muslim side, however, maintains that it is the Kamal Maula Masjid and has historically been used for namaz.
Menon also questioned the maintainability of two public interest litigations (PILs) filed by an organisation named “Hindu Front for Justice” and others. These petitions argue that the site is a temple and seek full worship rights for Hindus.
Challenging the PILs, Menon told the court, “This is not a matter of broad public interest but one that concerns a specific religious community. Treating it as a general public issue is legally questionable.”
She urged the court to examine the dispute on legal principles rather than religious sentiments. Referring to past submissions made by the state government and the ASI in different cases, she pointed out what she described as inconsistencies.
“The changing stance of authorities over time is arbitrary and cannot be accepted in law. The government is expected to maintain a consistent position,” she said.
The court was also informed that the 1935 declaration was issued as a formal notification by the Dhar Darbar during the princely state era, when the region was under the Bhopal Agency in British India.
On the other side, counsel representing Hindu petitioners reiterated that Bhojshala has long been regarded as a Saraswati temple and argued that the right to worship should rest with Hindu devotees.
A lawyer connected to the petitions said outside court, “For us, this is a matter of faith and historical belief. We want the court to recognise the site as a temple.”
The court has not yet given a final ruling. The matter remains under consideration, with hearings continuing as the court examines historical records, legal claims, and arguments from both sides.
Officials said the case is being handled with care, given its sensitive nature.
