In a historic verdict that resolves long-standing disputes over one of central India’s most contested heritage sites, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore on Friday ruled that the religious character of the disputed Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex at Dhar is that of a Bhojshala with a temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi (Maa Saraswati), originally established in 1034 AD by Raja Bhoj of the Paramara dynasty as a centre of Sanskrit learning. The court accepted the pleas of the Hindu sides, and rejected the pleas of the Muslim sides.
The court, comprising Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi, delivered the judgment in a batch of writ petitions and a writ appeal, including the lead case filed by the Hindu Front for Justice. It explicitly rejected claims that the structure was inherently or exclusively a mosque, and upheld its status as a centrally protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
The bench’s decision was based on an exhaustive review of historical records, archaeological evidence, the 2024 scientific survey conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) under court directions, and constitutional principles protecting religious and cultural rights. The court also partially quashed the 7 April 2003 order of the ASI Director that had restricted Hindu worship and permitted Friday namaz by the Muslim community in the disputed area.
Hindus have now been granted the right to perform daily pooja without restriction, and the government has been directed to form a trust for the temple’s administration while directing efforts to repatriate the Saraswati idol from the British Museum.
The bench relied heavily on a comprehensive scientific survey and excavation conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) pursuant to the court’s earlier directions in March 2024. It also drew on historical literature, inscriptions, gazetteers, and legal principles under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and Muhammadan Law.
Here are the major reasons cited in the judgment:
The court placed significant weight on centuries-old literary and epigraphic records confirming that Raja Bhoj constructed the Bhojshala in 1034 AD as both a Sanskrit Gurukul and a temple of Goddess Saraswati (Vagdevi), the deity of learning. References in the Imperial Gazetteer of India (1908), the Royal Asiatic Society Journal (1904), G. Yazdani’s Mandu: The City of Joy (1929), and inscriptions such as the Sarpabandha grammatical charts and the Vijayasrimatika drama fragment describe the site as a temple dedicated to Saraswati, adorned with sculptures and educational slabs.
These sources portray the complex as a Hindu centre of Vedic sciences, grammar, astronomy, and poetics, and these features are incompatible with original mosque architecture. The judgment notes that later Muslim rulers, including Allauddin Khilji (1305 AD) and Mahmood Shah Khilji (1514 AD), damaged the temple but failed to fully erase its Hindu character, as they reused its pillars, slabs, and carvings in subsequent constructions. The “Kamal Maula Mosque” label was deemed a historical misnomer applied to a structure built atop temple remains.
Similarly, the court also placed on the Sarpabandha inscriptions and the Sanskrit grammatical carvings on the monument. The court noted the Sanskrit grammar inscriptions, Prakrit verses, references to Raja Bhoj, inscriptions praising Paramara kings, and Sanskrit dramatic compositions embedded into the structure.
The judgment Royal Asiatic Society findings which described Sanskrit grammatical diagrams, inscriptions shaped like serpents, and educational content linked to Sanskrit learning. The court viewed these as characteristic of a Sanskrit learning centre and Hindu religious-cultural institution, not a mosque.
A cornerstone of the ruling was the detailed 2024 ASI scientific investigation, survey, and limited excavation ordered by the court to determine the site’s true character. The report, spanning multiple volumes, revealed a pre-existing Paramara-period (10th–11th century) temple plinth and structure beneath the current building.
The court mentioned that the structure has carved Hindu pillars, temple-style ceilings, sculptures, mutilated Hindu idols, Vishnu-related inscriptions, Sanskrit inscriptions, temple architectural fragments, Hindu iconography, and reused temple materials in later construction.
Key findings of the ASI study included 94 sculptures and fragments depicting Hindu deities, including Vishnu, Narasimha, and mutilated human/animal figures, which are inconsistent with Islamic iconography. Further, 106 temple-style pillars and pilasters were reused from an earlier edifice. Havan Kund, Jal Kund, Shikhara motifs, pranala (water spouts), and Kirtimukha carvings were also found, all hallmarks of Hindu temple architecture.
Stratigraphic analysis, GPR-GPS surveys, and epigraphic study identified a 15th-century Khilji-period inscription explicitly referencing the “destruction of idols” and “conversion of temple into mosque.” Earlier 1972-73 excavations had already uncovered temple fragments and a Vishnu sculpture.
The court held that these findings irrefutably establish that the present structure was modified from, and built over, an original Bhojshala temple complex, not constructed as a mosque from the ground up.
The court said the structure had “all trappings” of a Hindu temple. The petitioners argued the complex had all characteristics of a temple and not a mosque, and the court substantially accepted that argument.
The High Court took note of the revenue records produced by the State Government, which consistently described the disputed premises as “Bhojshala & Temple” in all official entries up to 1935-1936. The bench highlighted that there is no reference whatsoever to “Jama Masjid” or any mosque in these revenue documents.
It further recorded that the dargah of Hazrat Kamaluddin Chishti is situated on a separate and distinct survey number 302, outside the Bhojshala complex itself. Accepting the State’s submission, the court held that the entire land of the Bhojshala complex has remained under the ownership and exclusive management of the State Government / Archaeological Survey of India since well before independence.
Consequently, the property never belonged to any Muslim individual or entity so as to permit its valid dedication as waqf, nor could it have been lawfully notified or treated as such under the Waqf Act. This official revenue documentation was treated by the court as strong corroborative evidence reinforcing the historical and archaeological findings that the site retained its character as a Hindu temple complex and centre of Sanskrit learning, rather than an originally constructed mosque.
The bench decisively rejected the mosque’s claim on legal grounds rooted in Muhammadan Law and Hindu religious jurisprudence. It emphasised that a valid mosque requires waqf property dedicated by its owner to the Almighty. No evidence existed of any such dedication over the land, which had vested perpetually in the deity of Goddess Saraswati following Pran Pratishtha.
The court stated that once consecrated, the property remains the deity’s in perpetuity, mere damage or reuse of materials by invaders does not extinguish this right. The court observed that the graves and maqbara adjacent to the complex were later additions and could not convert the temple’s religious character.
The court noted that historical records showed no continuous ancient namaz practice. Permissions for Friday prayers dated only from a 1935 Dhar State notification and the 2003 ASI order, both of which lacked statutory authority to override the site’s original temple identity.
The High Court accepted the historical timeline regarding the Kamal Maula maqbara, holding that it was constructed significantly later than the original Bhojshala temple complex and on a distinct portion of land outside the core Saraswati temple area. Relying on the petitioners’ pleadings and corroborated historical records, including the Imperial Gazetteer of India (1908) and G. Yazdani’s Mandu: The City of Joy (1929), the bench noted that Maulana Kamaluddin had died in 1310 AD at Karnawati (present-day Ahmedabad) and was buried there.
The maqbara bearing his name at Dhar was erected only in 1514 AD, more than 204 years after his death, by Mahmood Shah Khilji, who had captured a small adjacent plot outside the main temple complex during a failed attempt to seize the Bhojshala. The court observed that this maqbara, along with the nearby graves and tombs shown in the site plan, were later additions by Muslim rulers who had damaged parts of the Hindu temple but could not alter its fundamental religious character.
These structures were therefore treated as separate from the disputed area, which the judgment declared retained its identity as the Bhojshala temple and centre of Sanskrit learning established by Raja Bhoj in 1034 AD. The bench emphasised that the mere presence of this later maqbara could not convert the pre-existing temple into a mosque or extinguish the deity’s perpetual rights over the original complex.
The High Court observed that the Bhojshala complex has witnessed continuous Hindu worship since its establishment by Raja Bhoj in 1034 AD, even through it faced centuries of invasions, desecration, and later administrative curbs. The bench noted that despite damage inflicted by Allauddin Khilji in 1305 AD and subsequent attempts by Mahmood Shah Khilji in 1514 AD to alter the site, Hindu devotees continued to revere the premises as the temple of Goddess Vagdevi (Maa Saraswati) and performed rituals such as Havan in the Havan Kund and offerings at the Jal Kund on auspicious occasions like Basant Panchami.
The judgment specifically referenced the 1997 writ petition filed by Vimal Kumar challenging orders that restricted Hindu entry and worship, underscoring that the community had consistently asserted its religious rights. The court held that the 7 April 2003 ASI order, which confined Hindu pooja to only Basant Panchami and Tuesdays while allowing Friday namaz, was an impermissible restriction that could not alter the site’s original temple character or extinguish the fundamental right to worship under Article 25 of the Constitution.
By declaring the religious identity of the disputed area as the Bhojshala with Saraswati Temple and quashing the restrictive portions of the 2003 order, the bench restored the right of Hindus to perform daily pooja, darshan, and rituals without any limitation, affirming that the continuity of worship by devotees has remained unbroken in both practice and legal recognition.
Drawing on Articles 25 (right to religion) and 29 (protection of cultural heritage) of the Constitution, the judgment called the temple’s desecration a “continued trauma” for Hindu worshippers spanning over 700 years. It invoked Article 13(1) to declare that pre-Independence wrongs, including the destruction and partial conversion of sacred sites, must be rectified in the post-Constitutional era.
The court noted the petitioners’ role in espousing the Hindu community’s cause, alongside parallel claims from Jain petitioners regarding shared educational and religious heritage. But the bench ultimately affirmed the dominant Saraswati temple character based on the available of evidence. It rejected arguments that the site’s protected-monument status or prior ASI notifications conclusively established mosque character, holding that such administrative labels could not override scientific and historical truth.
In its operative directions, the High Court declared the disputed area a Bhojshala with Saraswati Temple, quashed the restrictive portions of the 2003 ASI order, and mandated the creation of a trust under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, for temple administration and Sanskrit education, with ASI retaining overall custodianship. The Madhya Pradesh government has been asked to consider alternative arrangements for Muslim prayer if a valid claim is pursued. However, the monument remains protected, and no unauthorised alterations are permitted.
