The dispute over the Bhojshala–Kamal Maula mosque complex in Madhya Pradesh returned to the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday, with the Muslim side alleging bias in the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) findings.
Representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, senior advocates Salman Khurshid and Tausif Warsi told a division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi in Indore that the ASI report appeared one-sided and aligned with the arguments of Hindu petitioners.
The Hindu side maintains that Bhojshala in Dhar is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side identifies it as the Kamal Maula mosque. The ASI-protected site has remained a long-standing point of legal and historical contention.
In its objections, the Muslim side said the ASI repeatedly referred to the structure as a “Bhojshala Temple” despite, according to them, the absence of conclusive historical evidence supporting such a classification. They argued that the language used in the report reflected a predetermined stance and questioned the omission of historical records they believe contradict that view.
They also alleged that the survey documentation was incomplete, claiming they were not provided full videography and that several video clips were limited in duration. According to the objections, this restricted transparency in the process.
The lawyers further contended that the ASI report failed to establish any demolition-based origin of the mosque or a clear link to a prior temple structure. They pointed out that while some petitions cite historical claims linking the site to a Saraswati temple allegedly built in the 11th century by King Bhoj of the Parmar dynasty, the ASI report, they said, does not definitively support such assertions.
Raising procedural concerns, Khurshid also argued that directions from the Supreme Court barring physical alteration of the site were not fully adhered to, alleging that excavation activity took place within the complex.
He added that items reportedly recovered during the survey included everyday waste such as plastic bottles and paper, which, according to the Muslim side, undermines the evidentiary value of the findings presented.
The court is expected to continue hearing the matter as both sides maintain sharply divergent claims over the historical and religious character of the site.
