AIMPLB backs SC challenge to Bhojshala HC verdict declaring it a temple
Synopsis
The AIMPLB has thrown its weight behind a Supreme Court challenge to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling that declared the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque a Saraswati temple. The board argues the verdict overrides ASI's own decades-long recognition of the site's shared religious character and violates constitutional protections for places of worship — setting up a high-stakes apex court battle.
Key Takeaways
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday declared the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex a Saraswati temple .
The AIMPLB announced on 16 May its full support for the Kamal Maula Mosque Committee's plan to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court .
Ilyas said the ruling contradicts ASI's own earlier records, which described the site as a mosque, and the 2003 shared-worship arrangement.
The AIMPLB argued that reused architectural material in medieval Islamic structures cannot serve as conclusive proof of a site's religious identity.
The case is expected to test constitutional principles protecting the religious character of places of worship as they existed at Independence .
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Saturday, 16 May announced its full support for the Kamal Maula Mosque Committee's plan to challenge in the Supreme Court the Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict in the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute. The High Court, in its ruling on Friday, declared the mosque complex a Saraswati temple — a decision the AIMPLB has squarely rejected as contrary to historical and legal fact.
AIMPLB's Rejection of the Verdict
Board spokesperson S.Q.R. Ilyas said the High Court judgment is contrary to historical facts, official records, archaeological evidence, and even the earlier position of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). He argued that the ruling gives primacy to a presumed ancient temple and a civilizational narrative, while disregarding the centuries-old status of the mosque, official documentation, and the constitutional principle of preserving the religious character of places of worship as they stood at the time of Independence.
ASI's Earlier Position and the 2003 Arrangement
Ilyas pointed out that for decades, ASI's official records and signboards described the site as 'Bhojshala Kamal Maula Mosque' — amounting, he argued, to official recognition of its disputed and shared religious status. Under an administrative arrangement dating to 2003, Hindus were permitted to offer puja on Tuesdays, while Muslims were allowed to offer Friday prayers. 'This arrangement itself was a clear acknowledgement that ASI recognised the historical claims and worship rights of both communities. Therefore, the High Court's decision to terminate this arrangement marks a departure from ASI's own earlier stand,' Ilyas said.
Disputed Architectural Evidence
The AIMPLB also contested the weight given to ASI's recent survey findings. Ilyas noted that ASI reportedly cited certain pillars, carvings, and architectural elements as evidence of a temple, but cautioned that many medieval Islamic structures incorporated reused material from earlier constructions. 'The mere presence of non-Islamic architectural remains cannot legally extinguish the centuries-old status of a mosque, nor can remnants of an earlier structure serve as conclusive proof of the present religious identity of a site,' he said. He added that literary and traditional references to Raja Bhoj and Sanskrit learning do not always constitute conclusive historical evidence, and that many religious sites across the subcontinent have transformed across different historical periods.
What Happens Next
The Kamal Maula Mosque Committee is expected to file a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order. The AIMPLB has pledged to extend every possible support in this legal battle. The case is likely to test the boundaries of the constitutional principle protecting the religious character of places of worship, and could draw comparisons with other disputed-site litigations currently before the apex court.
Point of View
And the Supreme Court's eventual response will carry precedential weight far beyond Dhar district. What is notable here is the AIMPLB's explicit invocation of ASI's own administrative record: the 2003 shared-worship arrangement was effectively a state acknowledgement of contested ownership, and the High Court's decision to unwind it raises genuine questions about institutional consistency. The architectural-evidence argument is equally consequential — if reused structural material is treated as proof of original religious identity, the implications for scores of medieval-era sites across India are significant. Mainstream coverage has focused on the verdict's outcome; the harder question is the evidentiary standard it sets.
NationPress
3 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Madhya Pradesh High Court rule in the Bhojshala case?
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex is a Saraswati temple. The verdict, delivered on Friday, effectively terminated the shared-worship arrangement that had been in place since 2003.
Why is the AIMPLB opposing the High Court verdict?
The AIMPLB argues the ruling contradicts historical facts, official ASI records, and the constitutional principle of preserving the religious character of places of worship as they stood at Independence. It contends the court gave undue primacy to a civilizational narrative while ignoring centuries of documented mosque usage.
What was the 2003 arrangement at the Bhojshala site?
Under a 2003 administrative arrangement overseen by ASI, Hindus were permitted to offer puja at the site on Tuesdays, while Muslims were allowed to offer Friday prayers. The AIMPLB argues this arrangement was an official acknowledgement of the site's shared and disputed religious character.
How does the AIMPLB challenge the architectural evidence cited by ASI?
The AIMPLB notes that ASI reportedly cited pillars, carvings, and architectural elements as evidence of a temple. However, it argues that many medieval Islamic structures incorporated reused material from earlier constructions, and that the presence of non-Islamic architectural remains cannot legally extinguish a mosque's centuries-old status.
What is the next step in the Bhojshala legal dispute?
The Kamal Maula Mosque Committee plans to file a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the High Court verdict. The AIMPLB has pledged full legal support, and the case is expected to test constitutional protections for disputed religious sites.
