Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque Case: What Did Hindu Side Say? How Did Muslim Side Counter It?

Last Updated:May 15, 2026, 16:42 IST

Madhya Pradesh HC on Friday said Bhojshala complex in Dhar is temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, adding that Muslim community may approach state for land for mosque.

In the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque case, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the disputed 11th-century structure in Dhar is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati (Vagdevi).

The court quashed the 2003 arrangement that allowed shared usage (Hindus on Tuesdays, Muslims on Fridays) and granted exclusive worship rights to the Hindu side, while directing the state to consider alternative land for a mosque.

The legal arguments presented by both sides during the high-stakes High Court hearings focused on different aspects of history, law, and archaeology.

Why the matter reached the HC

The Hindu community considers Bhojshala to be a temple dedicated to Vagdevi (Goddess Saraswati), while the Muslim side calls the monument Kamal Maula Mosque. A petitioner from the Jain community claims the disputed complex is a medieval Jain temple and gurukul.

The Hindu community considers Bhojshala to be a temple dedicated to Vagdevi (Goddess Saraswati), while the Muslim side calls the monument Kamal Maula Mosque. A petitioner from the Jain community claims the disputed complex is a medieval Jain temple and gurukul.

After the controversy over the Bhojshala complex erupted, the ASI issued an order on April 7, 2003, permitting Hindus to worship at the complex every Tuesday and Muslims to offer namaz there every Friday. The Hindu side challenged the order in the High Court, seeking exclusive rights to worship at the complex.

The HC had ordered the ASI to conduct a scientific survey of the Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex on March 11, 2024. The ASI began the survey on March 22 that year and, after a detailed 98-day survey, submitted its report to the High Court on July 15.

Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi of the Indore bench of the High Court began regular hearings on five petitions and one writ appeal related to the case on April 6 this year.

After hearing all the parties against the backdrop of differing religious beliefs, historical claims, complex legal provisions, and thousands of documents related to the disputed monument, the bench had reserved its decision on May 12.

What were the arguments of the Hindu side?

Represented by bodies like the Hindu Front for Justice, the Hindu petitioners argued for complete title and exclusive access.

• Argued that the complex was originally a temple and an ancient Sanskrit learning center built by King Bhoj of the Parmar dynasty.
• Heavily relied on the 2,000+ page Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report. Pointed out that carvings, 97 discovered Hindu murtis (including Saraswati, Shiva, and Ganesha), pillars, and coins proved the mosque was constructed using dismantled temple materials.
• Highlighted recovered Sanskrit inscriptions and historical text indicating that a temple was forcefully repurposed into an Islamic structure by medieval invaders.
• Asserted that Hindu worship at the site had a continuous historical lineage and was never legally or spiritually abandoned.
• Argued that the 2003 ASI administrative order was discriminatory as it restricted full Hindu religious practices to just one day a week.

What the Muslim side argued

Represented by the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society and other community leaders, the Muslim petitioners contested the claims to maintain the status quo.

• Argued that the ASI’s scientific methodology was flawed, defective, and tilted toward supporting the narrative of the Hindu petitioners.
• Contended there is no verifiable, definitive historical evidence or state record proving that a standing temple was intentionally destroyed to erect the mosque.
• Strongly relied on a 1935 gazette notification issued by the erstwhile Dhar Princely State, which legally recognized the structure as a mosque and established their right to offer namaz.
• Stated that prayers had been offered at the Kamal Maula Mosque for over 400 years and that changing its identity violated established religious usage.
• Argued that an internal water tank within the complex was explicitly a “wuzu tank" designed and historically used for Islamic ritual ablution before prayers.

What the ASI and state government said

The ASI, after conducting a scientific survey of the monument, indicated in its over 2,000-page report that a massive structure dating back to the reign of the Parmar kings of Dhar predated the mosque, and that the current disputed structure was built using repurposed temple components. The ASI defended its multi-volume survey as strictly scientific and unbiased, noting that three Muslim experts were part of the investigation team to ensure transparency.

The Madhya Pradesh Government submitted that the site was historically a temple. The state argued that the 2003 permission allowing namaz was merely an executive tool utilized at the time to maintain public order and defuse local communal friction, rather than a recognition of title.

Following the verdict, the Muslim side has announced plans to challenge the High Court judgment in the Supreme Court.

With PTI inputs

News india Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque Case: What Did Hindu Side Say? How Did Muslim Side Counter It?

Read More