Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque |ASI Tells Madhya Pradesh High Court: Bhojshala A Protected Monument Since 1904

Additional Solicitor General Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), continued his submissions on Thursday before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex dispute, asserting that the site must be treated as a protected monument of national importance under a consistent statutory framework dating back to the early twentieth century.

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

At the outset, Mr. Jain focused on the statutory scheme under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, and subsequent legislations of 1951 and 1958, to argue that the classification of a site as an “ancient monument” does not require any formal notification. He submitted that Section 2 of the 1904 Act defines what constitutes an ancient monument, covering “any structure, erection, or monument… of historical, archaeological, or artistic interest,” and that such status flows from the nature of the structure itself.

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

The Bench, however, drew a distinction between an “ancient monument” and a “protected monument,” noting that while the former is definitional, the latter requires a formal declaration. Mr. Jain agreed, stating, “Unless an ancient monument is to be declared as a protected monument, no notification of the Central Government is required,” but maintained that the Bhojshala site was demonstrably treated as an ancient monument even in early records.

To support this contention, Mr. Jain relied on an Archaeological Survey of India report from 1909, which recorded conservation work at Dhar and Mandu, specifically referencing structures such as “Lat Masjid and Kamal Maula at Dhar” as ancient monuments. He argued that this documentation indicates official recognition of the site’s archaeological character well before independence.

The submissions then turned to the interplay between the 1904 Act and the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951. Mr. Jain contended that Section 2 of the 1951 Act enabled a formal declaration of monuments as being of national importance, while Section 3 introduced a deeming provision. “All ancient and historical monuments… declared to be of national importance shall be deemed to be protected monuments,” he read, emphasizing that such designation operates retrospectively.

Engaging with the Bench, Mr. Jain argued that even if a monument was not expressly notified as “protected” under the 1904 Act, its inclusion under the 1951 framework would automatically confer protected status. The Court observed that “once they are declared of national importance… they shall be deemed to be protected monument under the Act of 1904.”

Building on this interpretation, Mr. Jain submitted that the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex stood covered under the 1951 Act and must therefore be treated as a protected monument with retrospective effect. He further argued that this statutory position overrides any subsequent claims, including those purportedly issued by the erstwhile Dhar State in 1935 regarding religious use of the site. “No such notification… could have been issued,” he contended, asserting that once the monument fell within the protective regime, only the Central Government retained authority over it.

The Bench probed the legal consequences of repeal and saving provisions under the later 1958 Act. Mr. Jain responded that while the 1951 and 1956 enactments were repealed, the 1904 Act only “ceased to have effect” in relation to monuments declared of national importance, thereby preserving its applicability in other contexts. The Court observed that the legislative design suggested continuity rather than displacement of earlier law.

Also Read: Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque Dispute | Sr Adv Salman Khurshid Cites Ram Lalla Virajman, Only Idol Not Land Can Be Juristic Person

Mr. Jain also addressed arguments relating to alleged relinquishment of the site by a former ruler, submitting that such a claim is untenable. Referring to Section 17 of the 1958 Act, he argued that any relinquishment of rights in a protected monument requires Central Government sanction and notification. “Once a monument has been notified… it remains so,” he submitted, adding that no valid process of relinquishment had been demonstrated.

During the hearing, the Bench indicated that documentary records and statutory interpretation would require closer scrutiny and directed that ASI’s archival material be properly placed on record.

As the hearing concluded, the Court noted that arguments would continue on Monday (April 27, 2026).

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 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi