First and foremost: About the Bhojshal decision

The mixed architecture of the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh has fueled uncertainty about its religious identity for over a century, with disputes intensifying during the Ram Janmabhoomi mobilization. In 2003, the Archaeological Survey of India arranged for people of different faiths to take turns using it until a petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court sought a new survey to determine its “true” character. The Supreme Court committed in 2024. The Supreme Court also allowed the survey to continue with safeguards in place. On May 15, the Supreme Court ruled that the complex was a Hindu temple and suggested that the Muslim side seek alternative land from the state, insisting that it was only determining its religious character. The finding, which follows the resumption of the Bhojshala trial by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kanta in January, was based on the value of archaeological evidence and the 2019 Ayodhya court ruling, particularly the principles of “preponderance of probability” and “faith and belief”. While the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 froze the religious character of all places of worship on 15 August 1947, the case went through a loophole in Section 4(3) which exempted “ancient and historic monuments” under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act. Acta’s ghost.

The participation of the CJI also means that the Supreme Court remains in civil suits while allowing PILs to achieve functionally identical results. Courts may think they are neutral judges, but they operate in politically polarized terrain. Groups like the “Hindu Justice Front”, which initiated parts of the Bhojshala litigation, are politically backed entities using court rulings to consolidate agitation around contested religious sites. Archaeological obscurities in medieval structures are not new; however, contentious disputes in the form of courts asking what was “first” can impose arbitrary limits favorable to majoritarian political climates. A likely question is: why draw the line beyond medieval conquest and not go back to pre-Hindu history? The Bhojshal judgment suggests that the Ajodhya verdict has paved the way for repeated challenges to the status of minority religious sites if they are also protected by the survey, expanding the record that already includes Gyanvapi, the Shahi Idgah and the Bijamandal complex. The 1991 Act must be strictly enforced, without religious determination, except in the case of title disputes already ongoing at the time of its enactment. Likewise, shared use should be the norm, as democratic coexistence overrides any questions of “first” ownership.

Published – 20 May 2026 0:20 AM IST