Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during an urgent mentioning on Wednesday why the location had not been disclosed to senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, who represents the Muslim petitioners. The court agreed to take up the grievance on Thursday after the matter could not be heard fully because the bench rose early.
“Why don’t you give the alternate site details to Mr Ahmadi?” the Chief Justice asked as the dispute over compliance with the court’s interim directions returned before the bench.
Ahmadi alleged that the administration had failed to implement the Supreme Court’s order in its intended form. He said the site initially identified by the Dhar district authorities was about 1.3 kilometres from the disputed complex by road, despite the court having called for an open space adjacent to or near Bhojshala.
The Collector had issued an order stating that only the identified location would be made available, Ahmadi submitted. He also objected to another site later proposed by the authorities, contending that it was even farther away and situated within or close to a brewery area.
Mehta told the bench that discussions had been held again with the administration and that another location had been identified. The court indicated that the site details should be given to the Muslim side so that the objections could be considered when the matter is heard.
The disagreement follows the Supreme Court’s July 14 interim arrangement permitting Muslims to offer Friday namaz at a separate open space near the protected monument between 1 pm and 3 pm. The direction was issued while the court was examining appeals against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that declared the disputed complex to be a temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi, or Saraswati.
The Muslim side has said that at least two Friday prayer gatherings were missed because no suitable nearby location was provided. During an earlier hearing, Ahmadi argued that worshippers could not reasonably be expected to travel to a distant plot when the court’s direction specifically envisaged an adjacent or nearby space.
The state disputed the distance cited by the petitioners. Mehta maintained that the first location was about 900 metres from Bhojshala, while the Muslim side said the road distance was approximately 1.3 kilometres. Justice Joymalya Bagchi had earlier stressed that the court’s direction must be implemented “in letter and spirit”.
The interim dispute has emerged from a wider legal challenge to the High Court’s May 15 verdict. The Indore bench held that the religious character of the Bhojshala complex was that of a centre of Sanskrit learning and a Hindu temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati. It set aside a 2003 Archaeological Survey of India arrangement that had allowed Hindus to worship on Tuesdays and Muslims to offer namaz on Fridays.
Appeals filed by the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society and other Muslim parties contend that the High Court wrongly altered a long-standing worship arrangement at a centrally protected monument. The petitioners have also raised questions concerning the application of the Places of Worship Act, historical records and the interpretation of an archaeological survey conducted at the site.
The Supreme Court issued notice on the appeals and directed that no structural changes should be made at the monument without its permission. It declined, however, to immediately restore Friday namaz inside the disputed premises, opting instead for the temporary arrangement at a nearby open space.
Bhojshala, an Archaeological Survey of India-protected monument in Dhar, has been claimed by Hindus as an ancient temple and seat of learning associated with King Bhoja. Muslim groups identify the structure as the Kamal Maula Mosque and maintain that prayers have been offered there for generations.
(IPA Service)
Older vehicles may need E20 component changes 