Bhoj Shala–Kamal Maula Mosque Dispute: Supreme Court Orders Peaceful Basant Panchami Puja & Friday Namaz

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, on 22 January 2026, passed significant directions to ensure the peaceful conduct of Basant Panchami puja and Friday Juma Namaz at the disputed Bhoj Shala–Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh. The order comes amid long-standing disputes between Hindu and Muslim communities regarding the religious character of the 11th-century monument, which is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

Balancing competing religious claims with constitutional values of communal harmony, public order, and religious freedom, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach to prevent any law-and-order situation during overlapping religious observances.

Background of the Bhoj Shala Dispute

The Bhoj Shala complex holds dual religious significance. Hindus believe it to be a temple dedicated to Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati), while Muslims regard it as the Kamal Maula Mosque. Given the sensitivity of the site, a 2003 administrative arrangement permits:

Hindu worship on Tuesdays, and
Muslim prayers on Fridays.

The dispute escalated in recent years following directions for a scientific ASI survey, aimed at examining the historical character of the structure. This survey became the subject matter of litigation before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court.

Case Before the Supreme Court

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing an application filed by Hindu Front for Justice, seeking permission to conduct day-long Basant Panchami rituals from sunrise to sunset on 23 January 2026.

The application arose in a Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 7023/2024) filed by Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, Dhar, challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s interim directions allowing an ASI survey of the complex.

Submissions by the Parties

For the Hindu side, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain submitted that Basant Panchami is a sacred occasion and that pujas and havans were proposed to be conducted continuously throughout the day.

For the Muslim side, Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid highlighted that Juma Namaz has a fixed religious timing, typically between 1 PM and 3 PM, which cannot be altered. He submitted that worshippers would vacate the premises immediately after prayers.

The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, appearing for the Union of India and ASI, along with the Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh, assured the Court that the administration would maintain law and order and ensure compliance with any directions issued.

Supreme Court’s Directions for Peaceful Conduct

Taking a conciliatory and practical approach, the Supreme Court recorded a “fair suggestion” to accommodate both communities without infringing upon religious practices. The Court directed that:

Namaz may be performed between 1 PM and 3 PM in a separate and exclusive enclosure within the same compound.
The enclosure must have separate ingress and egress to avoid any confrontation.
A distinct space shall be provided to the Hindu community for Basant Panchami rituals.
The Muslim side shall furnish the number of worshippers expected for Namaz to the district administration in advance.
The administration may issue passes or adopt other fair mechanisms to regulate entry and prevent untoward incidents.

The Bench also made a strong appeal for mutual respect, urging both communities to cooperate with the authorities to preserve peace and harmony.

ASI Survey and Status of the Litigation

The Supreme Court also addressed the larger dispute concerning the ASI survey. It noted that:

The ASI has completed the scientific survey and submitted its report to the High Court in a sealed cover.
The High Court may unseal the report and provide copies to all parties.
Parties will have the right to file objections to the findings.
If certain portions cannot be disclosed, parties may be allowed to inspect them in the presence of their advocates.

The Court reiterated its earlier April 2024 interim order, which allowed the survey to continue but prohibited any excavation or action altering the character of the structure, and restrained authorities from acting on the report without prior judicial permission.

Direction to the High Court for Final Adjudication

Disposing of the SLP, the Supreme Court directed that the pending writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court be listed before a Division Bench headed by one of the senior-most judges. The High Court has been asked to consider all objections, suggestions, and opinions during the final hearing.

This step reinforces the Supreme Court’s consistent approach of allowing fact-finding and adjudication at the High Court level, while ensuring constitutional safeguards remain intact.

Constitutional and Legal Significance

The order is significant for several reasons:

Balancing Religious Freedom: The Court upheld the right of both communities under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution while ensuring that one practice does not override another.
Public Order and Secularism: By prioritising law and order, the Court reinforced the principle that religious freedom is subject to public order, morality, and health.
Judicial Restraint: The Court avoided making any observations on the merits of the religious character of the site, leaving it to be decided after due process.
Template for Disputed Religious Sites: The approach reflects a conflict-management model rooted in administrative regulation rather than religious adjudication, which may guide future disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in the Bhoj Shala–Kamal Maula Mosque dispute exemplifies judicial statesmanship in sensitive communal matters. By facilitating the peaceful coexistence of religious practices, the Court underscored the constitutional vision of unity in diversity.

As the matter now moves toward final adjudication before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the emphasis remains on dialogue, restraint, and rule of law, ensuring that faith is respected without compromising social harmony.