The Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque dispute has reached the Supreme Court, with Muslim worshippers and intervenors challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict of May 15, 2026, which declared the religious character of the disputed structure a temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati) and discontinued the long-standing arrangement permitting Friday namaz at the site.
The Special Leave Petition (SLP), filed under Article 136 of the Constitution, challenged the High Court verdict on the ground that the Court exceeded the scope of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 by effectively adjudicating the religious character of the disputed monument despite expressly observing that questions relating to title were not being decided in the proceedings.
According to the petitioners, the High Court’s findings on the religious character of the property indirectly determined core issues relating to title, possession and worship rights, which were already pending adjudication before competent civil courts. It was argued that such findings substantially prejudiced pending civil proceedings without a full-fledged trial or evidentiary examination.
Drawn by Advocates Vaibhav Choudhary, Syed Ashhar Ali Warsi, Mayank Singh Rawat, Poorvi and Hashim Khan, the plea contended that the impugned judgment disturbed a nearly two-decade-old arrangement evolved pursuant to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)’s order dated April 7, 2003. Under the arrangement, Hindu devotees were permitted to perform prayers at specified timings while members of the Muslim community were allowed to offer Friday namaz at the protected monument, with the objective of maintaining communal harmony, public order and status quo at the disputed site.
One of the principal grounds raised before the Apex Court concerned the applicability of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The petitioners argued that the High Court verdict violated the statutory embargo contained under the 1991 Act, which prohibited courts from entertaining proceedings seeking alteration of the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
The petition further alleged violation of Articles 14, 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution, contending that centuries-old worship rights of the Muslim community have been curtailed without due adjudicatory process, evidentiary scrutiny or trial. It was argued that the impugned judgment adversely affected constitutional guarantees relating to equality, personal liberty, freedom of religion and the right to manage religious affairs.
The petitioners further challenged the High Court’s observation permitting the state government to consider allotment of alternative land for the construction of a mosque. According to the plea, such a direction effectively acknowledged the displacement of existing Muslim worship rights and amounted to exercise of powers analogous to Article 142 of the Constitution, which were exclusively vested in the Supreme Court.
Describing it as a matter involving substantial constitutional questions concerning secularism, minority rights, judicial limits in adjudication of religious disputes and constitutional neutrality of the State, the petitioners asked the Apex Court to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
