Indore, April 6 The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday commenced continuous and regular hearings in the long‑standing and highly sensitive Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute in Dhar district.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi conducted a nearly two‑hour hearing, during which Senior Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the Hindu petitioners, including Ashish Goyal and the Hindu Front for Justice, presented detailed arguments.
The Hindu side asserted that the disputed complex is essentially a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati and cannot be considered a mosque.
Advocate Jain argued that Bhojshala was constructed by King Bhoj in the 10th-11th century as a centre of Sanskrit learning and education.
He emphasised its deep links to ancient Indian architectural and educational traditions, supported by historical documents and structures.
Citing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) scientific survey report, a voluminous document exceeding 2,000 pages submitted following the court’s 2024 order, the petitioners highlighted intricate carvings and sculptures on the pillars that indicate the site’s ancient Hindu religious character.
They also drew the court’s attention to a board installed in 1935, mentioning historical facts about Bhojshala, after which disputes allegedly intensified.
The lawyers further submitted that there is no historical evidence of a mosque at the site. They pointed out that even members of the Muslim community had earlier referred to it as King Bhoj’s Madrasa (school).
The Hindu side demanded that the statue of Goddess Saraswati, currently preserved in a museum in London, be repatriated and reinstalled, while seeking unrestricted rights for daily Hindu worship and a prohibition on offering Namaz at the complex.
The Bench made it clear that all parties and intervenors would be given a full and fair opportunity to present their arguments and evidence in a sequential manner.
The next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday (April 7, 2026), when the other sides are expected to advance their submissions.
With the decision to hold day‑to‑day hearings, the long‑pending dispute, which has seen multiple petitions, is likely to move towards a significant judicial conclusion in the coming days.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor