The long-standing dispute over the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Dhar has taken a significant turn with the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordering the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)
Share
INDORE — The long-standing dispute over the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Dhar has taken a significant turn with the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordering the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to provide complete videography of its extensive survey to all parties involved.
The directive, issued on Thursday during ongoing hearings by a bench of Justice Vijay Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, requires the ASI to make the footage available by April 27, ensuring transparency and equal access to evidence for both Hindu and Muslim stakeholders.
The survey, which lasted 98 days, was conducted using multiple scientific techniques and produced a detailed report of more than 2,000 pages, including photographs of artefacts, carvings, and inscriptions discovered at the site.
The Bhojshala complex has long been a contested monument. Hindus believe it to be a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while Muslims identify it as the Kamal Maula mosque.
This dual claim has fuelled decades of legal and social disputes.
The ASI’s survey was ordered to establish the historical character of the site, and its findings are now central to the arguments being presented in court.
The Hindu side has pointed to the presence of idols, trishuls, and carvings as evidence of temple remains, while the Muslim side has emphasised historical records and land documents that describe the site as a mosque.
During earlier hearings, the Muslim side had demanded access to the videography, arguing that without it they could not adequately challenge the ASI’s conclusions.
Although the Supreme Court declined to intervene directly, the High Court has now ruled that the footage must be shared with all parties.
The ASI initially expressed difficulty in providing such a large volume of material, given that videography was conducted daily over the course of the survey. However, the court directed that technical means be used to ensure timely delivery.
Two parties have already presented their arguments, and the ASI has defended its methodology.
The Muslim side reiterated its demand for the footage, which the court has now upheld.
With this order, the videography is expected to become a crucial element in shaping the next phase of hearings. Both sides will rely on the footage to substantiate their claims, making it a decisive factor in the resolution of this sensitive dispute.