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

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore on Tuesday continued hearing in the Bhojshala dispute, with Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain advancing a contentious argument that the offering of namaz at a site does not, by itself, confer the status of a mosque upon the structure.

Appearing before a division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, Jain framed his submissions around the legal character of religious spaces, asserting that the core issue remained the right to worship rather than competing claims of title.

During the course of arguments, Jain drew the court’s attention to a series of historical and archaeological materials, including colonial-era records, ASI publications, and state documents, to contend that the disputed structure was originally a Saraswati temple. However, the focus of the hearing shifted when the bench engaged with Jain on a broader legal proposition concerning the nature of religious worship.

Advancing his argument, Jain submitted, “By offering namaz at a particular place, it does not become a mosque.” He illustrated this by pointing out that namaz is often offered in public places such as airports, which do not thereby acquire the legal status of a mosque. According to him, Islamic law requires specific conditions for a mosque to come into existence, including valid dedication as waqf property.

The bench responded by testing the proposition across religions, observing that prayer is not confined to designated structures. “For performing puja also, it’s not necessary it has to be done in temple only… anybody can perform these prayers at any place,” Justice Shukla remarked, indicating a broader judicial inquiry into the nature of religious practices.

Jain, however, sought to distinguish Hindu law, arguing that once a temple is consecrated through “Prana Pratishta,” it acquires a permanent and immutable character. “Once a temple is established, always a temple,” he submitted, adding that a Hindu deity is treated as a juristic person whose rights do not extinguish even if the structure is destroyed. Relying on the Ayodhya judgment, he argued that “after destruction of the idol, the pious purpose does not extinguish.”

Building on this, Jain contended that even if a temple is demolished, the underlying religious character of the site persists. He argued that any subsequent use inconsistent with that character would be legally impermissible. The bench, however, clarified that its inquiry was confined to determining whether the disputed portion was a temple or a mosque, noting, “We have to confine our scope of adjudication to that disputed area.”

Jain also relied on state government records to argue that the site was never validly declared waqf property. Referring to a 2023 affidavit, he submitted that “without dedication, a valid waqf cannot be created,” and claimed there was no evidence of such dedication in the present case.

The hearing saw extensive references to historical records, including 1935 administrative proceedings, which Jain argued supported the temple origin of the site. The court, while allowing the submissions, repeatedly emphasised the need for substantiated material over broad assertions.

The matter will continue tomorrow for further hearing, with the court expected to examine both the historical evidence and the legal principles governing religious character and usage of protected monuments.

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 7, 2026

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi