The recent judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hindu Front for Justice vs Union of India represents a significant judicial intervention in one of India’s most sensitive and long-running religious site disputes. The case concerns the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar, a site where Hindu and Muslim communities have co-existed under a fragile administrative arrangement for decades.
By relying heavily on a court-commissioned archaeological survey, a Division Bench at Indore has declared the entire disputed area to be a Hindu temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, effectively overriding the site’s documented history of shared usage.
The judgment is notable for its sheer ambition and detail. Running over two hundred pages, it weaves together historical literature, epigraphic evidence, architectural analysis, and a multi-volume scientific survey report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The court directly addressed preliminary objections regarding maintainability, res judicata, and delay, clearing the way for a final determination on the religious character of the monument. It also brushed aside the applicability of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, holding that the site as a protected monument fell within the statutory exception to that law.
However, for all its comprehensiveness, the judgment raises profound legal and constitutional questions. Critics are likely to argue that the court overstepped its summary writ jurisdiction, selectively applied the Supreme Court’s own Ayodhya precedent, and fundamentally misinterpreted the Places of Worship Act.