Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain SLP By Mutawalli In Bhojshala Temple-Maulana Kamal Maula Mosque Case

The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra ordered, “Mr. Akbar Siddique, learned counsel submits that the petitioner here was not a party in the W.P. (C) 10497 of 2022 pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. However, the petitioner, being the Mutawalli, is affected by the interim order passed by the division bench on 11.03.2024. Be that as it may, the counsel submits that instead of pressing this matter, the petitioner would seek impleadment in the pending proceeding in the High Court and proceed thereafter. Noting the above submissions, the matter stands disposed of as not pressed".

 Senior Advocate Sridhar Potaraju, Advocates Vishnu Jain and Praneet Pranav appeared for the Respondent.

During the hearing, Justice Mishra remarked, “Why don’t you apply first in the High Court? You are straight away coming here in SLP, you are filing the intervention…You see, you are pre-empting things in the High Court. You will seek leave here, once leave is granted, you will automatically make yourself a party in the High Court. Why did you not implead yourself in the High Court?... Why don’t you implead yourself in the High Court first and then come?”

On March 11, 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had issued directions to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to inspect the premises of Maulana Kamal Maula Mosque. A Trust named Hindu Front for Justice had filed a writ petition before the Indore Bench seeking issuance of directions to the ASI Director in terms of Sections 75(e) and Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The Hindu Front for Justice had contended whilst pressing the Interlocutory Application before the Madhya Pradesh High Court that survey by the ASI is a statutory duty, which the ASI ought to have performed long back at the inception when the mystery and confusion about the true character of Bhojshala Saraswati Temple cum Maulana Kamal Maula Mosque arose leading to disputes about its true status.

The matter pertains to the Bhojshala Temple cum Kamal Maula Mosque in Dhar District, Madhya Pradesh. By the impugned order, the Director of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is required to undertake a scientific investigation through the adoption of the latest method in the concerned complex and also in the peripheral area surrounding the complex.

Bhojshala is an ASI protected monument, which Hindus believe is a temple of Waghdevi (Saraswati), while the Muslim community treats it as Kamal Maula Mosque. As per the arrangement made by the ASI, Hindus perform puja in the premises every Tuesday, while Muslims offer namaz in the complex on Fridays.

The Hindu Front had submitted historic facts about Bhojshala and its photos before the High Court to challenge the ASI's arrangement under different provisions of the Constitution. They have also urged the high court to give a religious right to Hindus to perform puja around the year and withdraw the permission given to the Muslim community to offer namaz on Fridays.

Recently, on April 4, 2024, the Supreme Court granted a stay and issued a notice in the SLP filed by the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society Dhar, M.P. challenging the interim order passed by the High Court. The Court observed, “Issue notice, returnable in four weeks…In the meantime, no action should be taken on the outcome of the survey ordered by the High Court under the impugned order dated 11.03.2024. It is also made clear that no physical excavation should be undertaken which will alter the character of Bhojshala Temple cum Kamal Maula Mosque at Dhar District, Madhya Pradesh.”

Cause Title: Quazi Moinuddin v. Hindu Front For Justice and Ors.