Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh to Fully Implement Interim Order in Bhojshala Prayer Dispute
The Supreme Court has directed the Madhya Pradesh Government to ensure strict compliance with its earlier interim order concerning the long-running Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute in Dhar. The direction came after the Muslim side informed the Court that the alternative site identified by the State for offering Friday namaz was not in accordance with the Court’s previous directions, as it was allegedly located too far from the disputed complex.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, reminded the State that its earlier order required an open space “adjacent or near to” the Bhojshala complex to be made available for Friday prayers as an interim arrangement. The Bench sought an explanation from the State and asked it to fully adhere to the spirit and letter of the previous order while the appeals remain pending.
The controversy arose after Muslim petitioners alleged that the site allotted by the district administration was nearly two kilometres away from the Bhojshala complex, making it inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s directive. Appearing for the State, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta disputed the distance claimed by the petitioners, stating that the designated site was approximately 900 metres away. Nevertheless, he assured the Court that the State would identify a location closer to the disputed premises if necessary.
The present proceedings stem from the Supreme Court’s interim order passed after it agreed to hear appeals challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment declaring the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex to be a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati. While refusing to restore Friday namaz at the disputed site, the apex court had directed that Muslims be provided an alternative prayer space nearby until the legal dispute is finally decided. The Court also restrained the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) from carrying out any structural alterations at the complex without its prior permission.
During the latest hearing, the Supreme Court reiterated that its interim arrangement was intended to balance competing religious claims while preserving peace and public order. The Bench emphasized that its earlier directions were binding and that the State administration must ensure effective implementation without creating practical difficulties for either community.
The Bhojshala dispute remains one of the country’s most sensitive religious property cases. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had held that the site’s religious character is that of a Hindu temple and had set aside the 2003 ASI arrangement permitting Muslim prayers at the complex. That judgment is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court, which has agreed to examine the legality of the High Court’s findings while maintaining an interim arrangement for religious observance.
The matter is expected to come up again after the State Government reports on compliance with the Court’s directions. The Supreme Court’s final verdict will not only determine the rights of the rival claimants over the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex but is also likely to have significant implications for the management of other disputed religious sites and the balance between competing claims under India’s constitutional and heritage laws.
