Bhojshala Case and Places of Worship Act

Context

The Bhojshala-Kamal Maula issue in Madhya Pradesh has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s verdict on the religious nature of the place.

Key Highlights

• The relevance of the issue is that it concerns the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, religious rights and judicial jurisdiction.
• For now, the Supreme Court has rejected the previous set-up and ordered an alternative prayer space to be set up for Muslims for Friday prayers in the nearby area, until the issue is looked into in detail.

Brief History of the Dispute

• The disagreement was based on an agreement between Archaeological Survey of India in 2003 which gave Hindus the privilege to pray at its temple on Tuesdays and Basant Panchami, and Muslims on Fridays.
• The Madhya Pradesh HC further instructed the ASI to do a scientific survey of the complex again.
• Based on the ASI report, the High Court had referred to the foundation of the High Court, temple style pillars and inscriptions mentioning Sharada Sadan, which were found in Paramara period.
• The court later concluded that the religious significance of the area at stake was that of a temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi.

Major Legal Challenges

• Scope of High Court Writ Jurisdiction

  • The petitioners argue that the High Court went beyond the scope of Article 226 writ jurisdiction.
  • They believe it is a complex issue of history, archaeology and evidence in determining the original religious nature of a disputed monument.
  • They argue that these should be answered in a proper civil trial with evidence examined and cross-examined.
  • The petitioners also submit that the ASI report had not been properly supported by thorough testing of its findings and had been accepted as evidence without proper scrutiny.

• Interpreting the Places of Worship Act

  • The challenge also looks at the Places of Worship Act, 1991 which primarily aims to maintain the religious character of places of worship as it stood on 15 August 1947.
  • The High Court invoked the exception in Section 4(3)(a) for protected monuments.
  • The petitioners say that this exemption does not permit the courts to open up monuments’ historical-religious character but permits preservation and management.
  • They also allege that this restriction upon Muslim worship could impact their basic rights to respect for their religion and belief under Article 25 and right to privacy under Article 26.

• Questions of Waqf and Administration

  • The petitioners argue that the Kamal Maula Mosque is a permanent Waqf under Muslim law.
  • They say that the High Court has negated the very nature of the mosque and the Waqf without taking into account the legal implications of the notified status of the mosque.
  • Directions by the High Court have also been challenged regarding the future administration of the site.

Way Ahead

• The Supreme Court should weigh historical precedent, statutory interpretation and constitutional religious freedoms.
• Courts must address the situation where they are summarily adjudicating complex historical controversies without sufficient evidentiary investigation, discussion or examination.
• The intent of the law passed by the Legislature guides interpretation of the principle of the Places of Worship Act.
• Transparent and legal procedures should be used in assessing scientific archaeological findings.
• A final judicial resolution should not only uphold constitutional protection but also communal harmony.

Source: The Indian Express

Prelims PYQ

(Q) The Nagara, the Dravida and the Vesara are the (2012)

(a) three main racial groups of the Indian subcontinent
(b) three main linguistic divisions into which the languages of India can be classified
(c) three main styles of Indian temple architecture
(d) three main musical Gharanas prevalent in India

Download as PDF