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

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid on Wednesday continued his submissions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute, relying extensively on the M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das to argue that faith, historical claims, and archaeological inferences cannot displace settled legal principles governing title and religious character.

Sr. Adv. Khurshid opened before a division bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, by reiterating that the Ayodhya judgment provides the governing framework for adjudicating such disputes, especially on the nature of a mosque and the limits of judicial inquiry into faith.

He argued that a mosque’s identity is not contingent upon strict compliance with doctrinal or structural requirements under Islamic law, but is determined by the conduct and belief of worshippers. The Supreme Court, he submitted, has expressly cautioned against courts acting as arbiters of theology, instead recognising the lived practices of devotees as determinative of religious character.

Sr. Adv. Khurshid further invoked the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, stressing that the statutory cut-off date of August 15, 1947 is decisive. According to him, the legislative intent, as recognised in Ayodhya ruling, was to “draw a line of closure” over historical disputes and preserve the religious character of places of worship as they existed at Independence.

While acknowledging the statutory exception for monuments protected by the Archaeological Survey of India, he argued that the ongoing challenge to the Act before the Supreme Court of India effectively keeps the issue in abeyance, thereby limiting the scope for judicial intervention at this stage.

A significant portion of his arguments addressed the doctrine of juristic personality in religious law. Sr. Adv. Khurshid submitted that legal personality is not inherent in divinity but is a judicial construct evolved for administrative convenience. While Hindu idols such as Ram Lalla Virajman have been recognised as juristic persons capable of holding property and instituting suits, this status does not extend automatically to religious sites or land.

Drawing from Ayodhya ruling, he emphasised that juristic personality arises from an express dedication to a pious purpose and is embodied in the idol as a legal representative of that purpose. The purpose itself may survive even in the absence or destruction of the idol, but land or structures do not acquire such personality merely due to religious association.

Also Read: “Once a Temple, Always a Temple”: Petitioner Argues Before Madhya Pradesh High Court In Bhojshala Hearing

He further clarified that similar principles apply across faiths, noting that the recognition of the Guru Granth Sahib as a juristic person in Sikh law was based on legal necessity rather than theological doctrine. By contrast, attempts to treat land as a self-manifested deity, or to elevate sites of worship into independent legal entities based solely on faith, have been expressly rejected. Citing precedents discussed in Ayodhya ruling, he pointed out that even deeply revered sites, such as sacred hills in Jain tradition, have been held not to possess juristic status despite their religious significance.

Sr. Adv. Khurshid used this framework to counter the “once a temple, always a temple” argument advanced by the petitioners. He argued that such a claim necessarily involves an assertion of title, even if couched as a demand for worship rights. Without establishing ownership or legal entitlement, a plea for exclusive access cannot stand. Historical assertions, he said, cannot bypass the requirement of proving title under settled legal principles.

A key thrust of Sr. Adv. Khurshid’s submissions lay in dismantling the evidentiary weight attributed to archaeological findings. Drawing from the Ayodhya judgment, he argued that archaeology is inherently interpretive, involving multiple layers of inference rather than definitive conclusions.

Also Read: Namaz Alone Doesn’t Make It A Mosque: Argument Before Madhya Pradesh High Court In Bhojshala Case

He pointed out that even in Ayodhya ruling, while an underlying non-Islamic structure was identified, the Supreme Court expressly noted the absence of conclusive evidence of demolition. The Court had cautioned that archaeological reports must be read with caveats, recognising both their strengths and limitations.

Extending this reasoning, Sr. Adv. Khurshid contended that ASI findings in the present case cannot, by themselves, determine title. He stressed that questions of ownership must be adjudicated on settled legal principles and evidentiary standards applicable to civil trials, not on historical reconstruction.

Referring to Ayodhya ruling, he highlighted that title cannot be inferred merely from the existence of earlier structures, especially in the absence of evidence explaining how and when such structures ceased to exist.

In a broader constitutional reflection, Sr. Adv. Khurshid relied on Ayodhya ruling to argue that courts cannot reopen historical wrongs or adjudicate claims rooted in medieval events. The judgment, he noted, makes it clear that the law cannot be used to revisit the actions of past regimes unless their legal consequences survive in the present.

The hearing remained part-heard, with Sr. Adv. Khurshid expected to continue his submissions tomorrow.

What has happened so far:

The Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque site has for decades been at the centre of competing claims by Hindu and Muslim groups. Hindus regard the monument as the ancient temple of Maa Vagdevi Saraswati, while Muslims identify the structure as the Kamal Maula mosque.

The matter has progressed significantly after the High Court earlier directed the Archaeological Survey of India to undertake a comprehensive scientific survey of the entire complex using modern and non-invasive techniques. The survey exercise continued for nearly ninety-eight days and aimed to examine the historical and structural aspects of the monument.

Following the completion of the survey, the ASI submitted its final report before the High court in a sealed cover. Subsequently, pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court of India, copies of the report were supplied to all parties involved in the litigation to enable them to examine the findings and place their responses before the court.

At present, the Bhojshala complex functions under an arrangement originally issued by the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India in 2003, under which Hindus are permitted to perform puja on Tuesdays and Muslims are allowed to offer namaz on Fridays.

The Court is hearing the matter on a day-to-day basis. In the previous hearings, the ASI defended its survey process as compliant with due procedure, while petitioners relied on architectural findings to assert temple origins. Intervenors, however, consistently questioned maintainability and pressed for a full civil trial, even as calls for a practical, non-confrontational resolution were also placed before the Court by one of the petitioners.

The matter is now scheduled for further hearing tomorrow (April 23, 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 22, 2026

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi