Bhojshala Temple - Kamal Maula Mosque | ASI Tells Madhya Pradesh High Court Survey Followed Statutory Due Process

Additional Solicitor General Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), on Monday placed reliance on statutory frameworks, historical records, and the recent court-monitored survey to defend the ASI’s position in the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex dispute before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The matter is being heard at Indore by a Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi.

Opening his submissions, Mr. Jain informed the Court that the ASI’s findings are rooted in three key legislations: the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, the 1951 enactment, and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 along with multiple survey reports conducted over time. He particularly referred to the latest scientific survey carried out pursuant to the High Court’s order dated March 11, 2024.

Reading from the operative directions, Mr. Jain emphasized that the Court had mandated “a complete scientific investigation, survey and excavation” using modern techniques such as carbon dating, GPS mapping, and detailed documentation of both above-ground and subterranean structures. The order further required the constitution of an expert committee of at least five senior ASI officers, headed by top officials, and directed that efforts be made to include representation from both contesting communities.

Mr. Jain submitted that these directions were duly complied with. “There were seven members, out of which three from the Muslim community and four from the Hindu community,” he stated, adding that the entire exercise was videographed and conducted in the presence of nominated representatives of both sides. He also highlighted that the survey included unlocking sealed portions of the complex and preparing an inventory of all artifacts, idols, and structural remains, each subjected to scientific examination.

Addressing concerns around the report, Mr. Jain told the Bench that no objections were raised by any party at the time of its submission. “Everybody had access… and after submitting the report, no objection came forward at that point of time,” he said, suggesting that subsequent challenges lack procedural foundation.

The Bench, however, sought clarification on the terminology used in official records, particularly the phrase “Bhojshala Temple cum Kamal Maula Mosque.” Mr. Jain responded that the expression finds mention in earlier records and reports, though its precise origin would be clarified. The Court observed that in certain notifications, the word “temple” does not appear, prompting a closer examination of historical documentation.

Mr. Jain then traced the statutory evolution governing protected monuments. Referring to Section 3 of the 1904 Act, he explained that the Central Government was empowered to declare any ancient monument as protected through official notification. He further elaborated on the 1958 Act, noting that it introduced clearer definitions, including that of “ancient monument” as a structure of historical or archaeological interest existing for over 100 years, and “protected monument” as one declared of national importance under the Act.

The Bench engaged with the distinction between the 1904 and 1958 frameworks, observing that while the earlier law used the term “protected monument,” the later statute tied such designation explicitly to national importance. Mr. Jain argued that the 1904 Act continues to have limited applicability in cases not subsumed under subsequent enactments, particularly in light of the saving clause under Section 39.

Turning to historical material, Mr. Jain relied on ASI records, excavation reports, and published works to contend that the site reflects layers of construction and reuse. He read excerpts describing the structure as a mosque built using remains of an earlier temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, with references to Sanskrit inscriptions and architectural fragments discovered during excavations. He also cited an ASI report noting findings such as sculptures, temple remains, and artifacts from different historical periods.

Importantly, Mr. Jain pointed to official communications and records referring to the site as “Bhojshala and Kamal Maula Mosque,” arguing that this nomenclature has institutional backing. He further submitted that the monument has been consistently treated as one of national importance under successive legal regimes, beginning with its declaration under the 1904 Act.

In response to queries from the Bench, Mr. Jain clarified that the property is not recorded as belonging to the Wakf Board and that later claims to that effect would not override its status as a centrally protected monument. He also described certain descriptions of the site as a “misnomer,” indicating that terminology has evolved over time based on historical interpretation.

The matter is scheduled to continue on Tuesday.

Case Title: Hindu Front for Justice (Regd. Trust No. 976) Through its President Ms. Ranjana Agnihotri v. Union of India Ministry of Culture and other connected matters

Date of Hearing: April 20, 2026

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi