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

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore on Wednesday continued hearing in the Bhojshala dispute, with advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain advancing detailed submissions centred on the proposition that a pre-existing temple, even if demolished, retains its legal and religious character, entitling devotees to worship at the site.

Appearing before a division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, Jain argued that the core issue before the court was whether a Saraswati temple existed at the disputed premises prior in time and whether its demolition altered its legal status.

At the outset, Jain addressed the claim that the site constitutes waqf property, contending that no valid waqf was ever created. He submitted that under Islamic law, a waqf requires ownership by the waqif and a formal deed of dedication. “In this particular case, there is no deed of dedication, and there is not a valid waqf,” he argued. Referring to a 1985 notification relied upon by the opposing side, Jain asserted that it was inapplicable to the Bhojshala complex and, in any event, rendered void by virtue of Section 3D of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which invalidates waqf declarations over protected monuments.

Turning to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, Jain argued that its bar on conversion does not preclude adjudication in the present case. He pointed out that Section 4(3)(a) of the Act excludes ancient monuments and archaeological sites governed by the 1958 Act from its ambit. “The provisions… will not apply if the site is covered by the Monuments Act,” he submitted.

He further contended that Section 3, which prohibits conversion of places of worship, in fact supports his case if the site is established to have been a temple originally. “What is the place of worship… is to be decided first,” he argued, emphasising that determination of religious character is a prerequisite.

Building his central argument, Jain repeatedly stressed that the legal character of a temple does not extinguish upon its destruction. Relying on judicial precedents including the Ayodhya judgment, he submitted that Hindu idols are recognised as juristic persons and that the underlying “pious purpose” continues even if the physical structure or idol is destroyed. “Once a temple is established, always a temple,” he argued, adding that demolition does not erase the legal personality of the deity.

The bench engaged with the submissions, indicating that the determination of the site’s religious character would be crucial. Jain framed the dispute in three parts: whether a temple existed at the site, whether it was demolished, and what legal consequences follow. “If I am able to establish that a temple was pre-existing… then the legal personality will not diminish,” he submitted.

He also clarified that his claim was not based on prior usage but on prior existence. “I am not at all contending that since I was offering worship, I have a better right. My contention is that since the temple was existing… therefore, I have a right to worship,” he told the court.

Arguing that the deity continues to exist even without a physical idol, Jain submitted that “after demolishing a Hindu idol… the deity exists at the site in invisible form,” thereby preserving the rights of devotees.

The hearing remained focused on the interplay between historical evidence, statutory protections, and evolving legal doctrines on religious character, with the court indicating that the matter would proceed further tomorrow for continued arguments.

Earlier, 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.”

The court will continue to hear the matter tomorrow. 

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 8, 2026

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi