Members of the Muslim community in Dhar offered Friday prayers at home and wore black bands after a court ruling ended their access to the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex for weekly namaz, marking a sharp shift in a dispute that has shaped religious and legal tensions in Madhya Pradesh for more than two decades.
The first Friday after the Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict passed without namaz at the protected monument, where Muslims had been permitted to pray every Friday under a 2003 Archaeological Survey of India arrangement. Hindu devotees gathered at the site for worship, while the district administration deployed heavy security across Dhar to prevent any breach of peace.
Community representatives said the decision to pray at home was intended as a peaceful protest against the court setback. Black bands were worn to register opposition to the ruling while avoiding confrontation at the disputed site. The move reflected both disappointment over the loss of Friday access and caution over the sensitive atmosphere around the monument.
The High Court, sitting at Indore, ruled on May 15 that the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex has the character of a temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi, also identified with Saraswati. It quashed the April 2003 ASI order that had allowed Muslims to offer namaz at the site on Fridays and Hindus to perform worship on Tuesdays. The verdict effectively ended a dual-use arrangement that had governed access to the complex for 23 years.
The order relied heavily on archaeological findings and historical material placed before the court. The ASI survey, conducted after earlier judicial directions, documented sculptures, Sanskrit inscriptions and architectural elements that the court treated as evidence of the site’s temple character. The court also held that later structural changes did not erase what it viewed as the monument’s original religious identity.
Muslim litigants have challenged the High Court ruling in the Supreme Court, arguing that the judgment disrupts a long-standing worship arrangement and raises broader questions about legal protection for religious practice at contested heritage sites. Their petition is expected to test how the apex court balances archaeological evidence, historical claims, worship rights and the status of protected monuments.
The dispute has wider resonance because Bhojshala is not merely a local religious site. Hindu organisations regard it as a centre associated with Raja Bhoj and the worship of Vagdevi, while Muslim groups have treated part of the structure as the Kamal Maula Mosque. The overlapping claims have produced repeated legal battles, administrative restrictions and periodic security alerts.
Authorities in Dhar imposed tight arrangements around the complex after the verdict. Police presence was increased near the monument and in sensitive parts of the town, with senior officials monitoring movement to ensure that demonstrations did not escalate. The administration’s immediate priority has been to prevent street-level tensions while allowing court processes to continue.
For Hindu groups, the verdict represents recognition of a claim pursued through petitions, historical records and archaeological scrutiny. Their position has been that the monument’s religious and cultural identity predates later alterations and that worship rights should not have been limited by the 2003 arrangement. The court’s decision has strengthened their demand for unrestricted worship and further preservation measures.
For Muslim residents and petitioners, the ruling has raised concerns about the loss of a practice that had operated under state supervision for more than two decades. They argue that the Friday prayers were part of a regulated arrangement, not an act of encroachment, and that the matter should be examined by the Supreme Court before irreversible administrative steps are taken.
The case also places the ASI in a difficult position. As custodian of the protected monument, it must implement court directions while preserving the structure and preventing unauthorised alteration. The agency’s earlier order sought to manage competing religious claims through designated days, but the High Court has now found that arrangement unsustainable.
