On 15 May 2026, The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has delivered its judgement in the case pertaining to Bhojshala of Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, claimed by both Hindus and Muslim, by the former as an ancient Saraswati temple and by the latter as a mediaeval mosque.
The Bhojshala dispute is an ongoing legal and religious conflict over a religious site, Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex, an 11th century monument, in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh. Hindus claim the site is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati (Vagdevi) built by Raja Bhoj, while Muslims identify it as the Kamal Maula Mosque.
Well, the evidence that the temple predated the mosque is visible to the naked eye. As the dispute reached the High Court, the court ordered a survey by the Archeological Survey of India. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) submitted a comprehensive 2,000+ page scientific survey report in mid 2024 on the disputed complex.
The report concluded that the existing structure was built using materials from pre-existing 11th-century Paramaraera temples which also served as a Sanskrit learning center. The ASI found the current structure was constructed utilizing architectural parts, pillars, and structural fragments from earlier temples. Furthermore, the ASI excavation also unearthed relics and structures and several broken pieces of stone featuring Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions.
The ASI report also elaborated that the mosque’s wall, or mihrab, appears to be a newer structure made of different materials than the main complex. So, the report established, beyond any doubt that the Kamal Maula Mosque is a superimposition on the Bhojshala temple. However, as usual, the Muslim community has been negating it. And the argument, more than the legality or even an acknowledgement that a temple existed, has been, as usual “ab masjid ban gayi to ban gayi” (once a mosque has been constructed, let it be).
And the government has been trying to put a lid on this and other similar disputes. For example a compromise of sorts was delivered vide a 2003 order allowing pooja as well as namaz on specific time and dates. The biggest step in this direction was the Places of Worship Act 1991 which provides that the “character” of a place of worship, as it existed on 15th August 1947, cannot be changed.
Although the constitutionality of the Act has been challenged and is yet to be decided, on the date of the Bhojshala judgement it is operational.
In this case Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid represented the Muslim side and based his plea mainly on the PoW Act 1991. Khurshid strongly relied on this legislation, arguing that the cut-off date of August 15, 1947, is decisive. He argued that the law prevents altering the religious character of any place of worship from its status at independence.
His second argument was that even though the Archeological Survey of India has opined that an ancient temple existed on the site, it is not established through direct or specific evidence proving a Bhojshala temple was demolished to construct the Kamal Maula mosque.
The second argument is ridiculous and laughable. Once it’s established that a temple preexisted the mosque on the site, where is the need to prove that the mosque is either an encroachment or a superimposition?
However, we need to understand how the judgement is compatible with the PoW Act 1991:
- There is a statutory exception embedded within the Act itself.
The Act prevents altering the religious character of any shrine as it stood on August 15, 1947. However, Section 4(3)(a) explicitly excludes any ancient, historical monument, or archaeological site that is governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
The Bhojshala complex in Dhar has been recognized as a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) since the early 20th century, placing it outside the Act’s restrictive “freeze” on religious character.
- The most important, and often ignored, aspect of the Act is about determining the “character” of a place of worship.
Who will decide what the “character” was on the cut off date?
This question arose in another dispute – the Gyanvapi mosque inside the Kashi Vishwanath temple campus. The Varanasi District Court and the Allahabad High Court determined that to decide whether the Act applies (or bars the suit), they first need to ascertain the true nature and historical status of the property.
Therefore, admitting the suit and ordering surveys (like the ASI survey) was seen as a necessary step to establish the exact pre-1947 religious character of the structure.
And herein lies the crux.
If there is evidence of a temple (like Sringar Gauri or the idols in the basement of the mosque, or a Shivling) does the 1991 Act negate the existence of a temple because a mosque has been superimposed on it?
Does the “character” of a temple change if namaz is being offered on its campus?
And what if there is a dual character – a temple as well as a mosque coexisting within the same structure, as in Gyanvapi?
So, this hurriedly enacted Places of Worship Act 1991 generated more questions than answers.
Editor’s Note: This article is a guest contribution by Satish Chandra and reflects the author’s views and interpretations. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of The Indian Sun, its editors, publishers or contributors.
The author has asked that readers view this article as a discussion of the Bhojshala court judgement specifically. He notes that the wider historical debate surrounding places of worship in India remains complex and sensitive. The author supports social harmony and agrees that contemporary society should not be driven by historical grievances. At the same time, he argues that discussions surrounding sites such as Kashi, Mathura and Bhojshala should be approached with maturity, restraint and mutual respect by all communities.
Support independent community journalism. Support The Indian Sun.
Follow The Indian Sun on X | Instagram | Facebook
Support Independent Community Journalism
Dear Reader,The Indian Sun exists for one reason: to tell stories that might otherwise go unheard.
We report on local councils, state politics, small businesses and cultural festivals. We focus on the Indian diaspora and the wider multicultural community with care, balance and accountability. We publish in print and online, send regular newsletters and produce video content. We also run media training programs to help community organisations share their own stories.
We operate independently.
Community journalism does not have the backing of large media corporations. Advertising revenue fluctuates. Platform algorithms change. Costs continue to rise. Yet the need for credible, grounded reporting in a multicultural Australia has never been greater.
When you support The Indian Sun, you support:
• Independent reporting on issues affecting migrant communities
• Coverage of local and state decisions that shape daily life
• A platform for small businesses and community groups
• Media training that builds skills within the community
• Journalism accountable to readers
We cannot cover everything, but we work to cover what matters.
If you value thoughtful reporting that reflects Australia’s diversity, we invite you to contribute. Every donation helps us maintain the quality and consistency of our work.
Please consider making a contribution today.
Thank you for your support.
The Indian Sun Team
