Bhojshala temple dispute: SC refuses to restore Friday Namaz, allows Muslims to offer prayers near site

The Supreme Court has directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) not to make any structural changes to the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex without first obtaining its permission.

By  Jasleen Kaur Gulati July 14th 2026 03:35 PM

PTC News Desk: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to pause Madras High Court's verdict declaring the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula mosque complex in Dhar as a temple, but allowed Muslims to offer Friday prayers near the disputed site.



A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, allowed Muslims to offer prayers near the site on Fridays between 1 and 3 pm as an interim measure.



"These are sensitive matters. Let us not pass any order which can cause tension or affect the law and order situation," the CJI said, while refusing to pass any interim verdict. The bench said the matter would be fixed for final hearing in three weeks.


The Supreme Court has directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) not to make any structural changes to the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex without first obtaining its permission.


The dispute over the site has continued for decades. Hindus claim that Bhojshala is an ancient temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while Muslims say it is the Kamal Maula Mosque.


On May 15, the Madhya Pradesh High Court accepted the ASI's findings that the site was originally a temple. It also cancelled a 2003 ASI order that had allowed Hindus and Muslims to offer prayers at the site on different days. However, the High Court said the Muslim community could seek land elsewhere in Dhar district to build a mosque.


During the Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Muslim side, argued that the High Court relied on disputed findings in the ASI report and did not properly examine ASI officials. He said the ruling disturbed a status quo that had existed for nearly 800 years.


Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi also argued that if every such historical claim is accepted, it could lead to similar disputes across many other sites.

Related Post