Multiple reactions poured in after the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court declared the Bhojshala–Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar to be a temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi Saraswati, setting aside the 2003 administrative arrangement that had allowed Hindu worship on Tuesdays and Friday namaz by Muslims at the protected monument.
The ruling, delivered on May 15 by a bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, held that the religious character of the disputed site was that of Bhojshala, associated with Sanskrit learning and worship of Goddess Saraswati. The court allowed petitions filed by Hindu parties and quashed the Archaeological Survey of India order to the extent that it restricted Hindu worship and permitted Muslim prayers inside the complex.
Vishwa Hindu Parishad leaders described the order as a “historic verdict”, saying it vindicated a long campaign to recognise the monument as a Hindu temple site. Local supporters celebrated in Dhar, where security had been strengthened around the complex ahead of the judgment because of the sensitivity of the dispute. Slogans, distribution of sweets and public gatherings marked the first hours after the ruling, even as officials maintained a watch on law and order.
Chief Minister Mohan Yadav welcomed the decision, calling it a positive development linked to cultural heritage and public sentiment. His remarks placed the verdict within a wider political discourse over religious sites, heritage claims and the role of courts in settling disputes that have carried strong community mobilisation for decades.
Muslim representatives and legal voices offered a more guarded response. The Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, which has been associated with the mosque claim, indicated that it would challenge the High Court order before the Supreme Court. Its position signals that the dispute is likely to move to the next judicial stage rather than end with the Indore ruling.
The court said the Muslim community may seek alternative land in Dhar district for construction of a mosque or place of prayer, and that such an application may be considered by the state in accordance with law. It also directed the Union government and the Archaeological Survey of India to take decisions on administration and management of the site while preserving its status as a protected monument.
The Bhojshala complex has long been claimed by Hindu groups as a temple of Goddess Saraswati and by sections of the Muslim community as Kamal Maula Mosque. The 2003 arrangement under the Archaeological Survey of India had permitted Hindus to perform puja on Tuesdays and Muslims to offer namaz on Fridays, an administrative compromise that remained contested in litigation.
The present proceedings arose from multiple petitions relating to the monument’s religious and historical character. Hindu petitioners argued that the structure bore archaeological, inscriptional and literary evidence linking it to the reign of Raja Bhoj and to a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati. Muslim parties contested that claim, citing historical records and earlier arrangements that had allowed prayers at the site. Jain representatives also raised claims linked to iconography and architectural features, adding another layer to the dispute.
The High Court’s judgment follows a court-ordered scientific survey and a series of procedural interventions, including directions linked to the survey report and access to its material by the parties. The Supreme Court had earlier intervened in aspects of the survey process, making the next stage of litigation particularly significant if an appeal is filed.
A Hindu party has already filed a caveat in the Supreme Court, seeking to ensure that it is heard before any order is passed on a challenge to the High Court ruling. That move reflects expectations of a swift legal contest over the judgment, especially on questions of worship rights, heritage management and the treatment of competing religious claims.
The verdict also carries wider implications because it comes amid continuing national debate over disputed religious sites and the legal limits of reopening historical claims. Supporters of the ruling see it as recognition of what they describe as historical continuity and civilisational memory. Critics are expected to test whether the judgment can withstand scrutiny under constitutional principles, statutory protections for monuments and the broader framework governing religious places.
