The Madhya Pradesh High Court said Friday (May 15) that the religious character of the disputed Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex was that of Bhojshala, or a temple of goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati).The medieval structure in Madhya Pradesh’s Dhar has long been the subject of competing claims. While Hindus consider the ASI-protected complex a temple dedicated to the goddess, Muslims regard it as the Kamal Maula mosque. Under a 2003 arrangement, Hindus have performed puja at the complex on Tuesdays while Muslims offered namaz on Fridays — until now.In 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered an ASI survey of the complex, observing that its nature and character need to be “demystified and freed from the shackles of confusion”. The ASI report stated that the “existing structure was made from the parts of earlier temples”.On Friday, the Bench of justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi, in its 242-page judgment, concluded that the “historical literature placed (before the court) established that the character of the disputed area was Bhojshala as a Centre of Sanskrit learning associated with Raja Bhoj of Parmar dynasty”, which indicates the “existence of temple dedicated to the goddess Saraswati at Dhar.”Here’s what to know about how the court arrived at its verdict.What the High Court ruledOn Friday, the court said that historical literature and architectural references established that the disputed complex was associated with Raja Bhoj of the Parmar dynasty and functioned as a centre of Sanskrit learning.Story continues below this adAlso Read | The history of the Bhojshala disputeAllowing petitions filed by the Hindu Front for Justice and others, the court on Friday set aside portions of the April 7, 2003, order passed by the ASI director that restricted the rights of Hindus to worship within the Bhojshala complex while permitting namaz by the Muslim community.It also directed the Union government and the ASI to take decisions regarding the administration and management of Bhojshala and the Sanskrit learning centre situated on the disputed land in Dhar district, while clarifying that the ASI would continue to exercise overall control and management of the protected monument under the 1958 Act.Not a decision on the title of propertyIn the present case, the court said that it was not deciding the title of the property of the disputed area. Most of the “arguments of the other respondents and interveners were as if the petitioners are claiming title over the disputed area,” the court said.In the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case (in which the Supreme Court ruled in 2019), the judgment had arisen out of a civil suit dealing with the claim of a title over the disputed area. In the present case, the court determined “the character of the disputed area on the basis of historical literature, architectural features, ASI survey reports, etc.” Story continues below this adBhojshala verdict: | What the Hindu and Muslim sides argued in the High CourtThe Muslim side had produced an ailan (order) from August 24, 1935, which recognised the disputed property as a mosque. The court, however, held this was not a legal constitutional order.The court held that the disputed area was already notified as an ancient monument under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, and since it was a protected monument since 1904, then the “Ruler of Dhar State could not have issued Ailan dated 24.8.1935”. Historical evidence submitted by Muslim sideThe Muslim side had submitted various historical literature to state that the “Hazrat Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti had laid the foundation stone of the said Mosque in 1306-07 AD”.The court, however, said “none of the material relied [on] by them shows that the disputed area which is claimed to be a mosque was constructed prior to 1034 AD”. More importantly, the court said the historical material, literature, and the notifications placed by the appellant “itself established that the said mosque was constructed after 1034 AD”.Story continues below this adThe other reason why the court disowned the claim that the disputed area was a mosque right from its inception was because the court said there was no material that suggests the disputed land was Waqf (charitable endowment under Islamic law) property.State, ASI submission in court | Bhojshala site in Dhar ‘was never a mosque’, ‘Muslims have no right to offer namaz’ thereThis is because the historical records did not show the property belonged to a Waqif (donor) and the “owner must belong to the Waqf and dedicated the property to the almighty”. “Historical material placed before us could not show that waqf has been created and therefore, there can be no presumption regarding existence of a mosque in the disputed area,” the court said.On allegations regarding fairness of ASI surveyA core technical team of archaeologists was formed for conducting the survey. As per theStory continues below this adcourt order, a team of seven senior archaeologists headed by an Additional Director General of the ASI was constituted. It also comprised ASI officers even belonging to the Muslim community, and two nominated representatives of each petitioner were also present at the time of photography and videography during the entire survey proceedings.The Muslim side had raised questions about the process leading up to the ASI report. But the court said this argument could not be accepted.“We find that the survey was conducted by adopting (a) scientific method in a fair and impartial manner…. The method which has been adopted by the experts was as per their expertise. The carbon dating method is used to determine the age of material itself and not for the age of construction period. The scope of (the) survey was to find out the period of architectural structure of the disputed area,” it said.On the contention of the Muslim side that plastic bottles and modern waste was recovered — showing the site was compromised — the court said that “such material was found only in the uppermost heterogeneous debris layers, which already consisted of modern dumped material, conservation debris, ceramic pieces, wrappers and assorted waste”.Story continues below this adBuddhism and JainismOn the allegation that the ASI did not take into account the recovery of a Gautam Buddha statue, the court relied on the ASI’s argument that “no such idol was recovered, and the concerned artefact referred to by the other side was not in fact a Jain statue, which was duly recorded and catalogued”.Meanwhile, the court also did not agree with the Jain community’s contention that the Saraswati idol was, in fact, an idol of Ambika from the Jain religion. The court said that in India, “Jainism and Hinduism are not distinct entities”. According to the court, both faiths have evolved alongside each other since ancient times and idols belonging to “both Jain and Hindu traditions are frequently found within each other’s temples”. It also sought to provide a legal basis to this by citing provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, wherein “Jainism and Buddhism are considered to be part of Hinduism.”“Therefore, the discovery of a statue of a Jain Tirthankara within the disputed premises during the excavation… comes as no surprise,” the court said.