NEW DELHI: The recent judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula mosque dispute has largely been viewed through the prism of competing Hindu and Muslim claims.
Yet, hidden within the 242-page verdict is another important dimension: the Jain community had also staked a claim over the disputed complex, arguing that it reflected Jain religious traditions, scholarship, and temple architecture.
The division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, however, dismissed the Jain plea, ruling that there was insufficient historical, architectural, or archaeological evidence to establish Bhojshala as a Jain temple.
The ruling came in response to Writ Petition No. 8986 of 2026 filed by Salek Chand Jain. The Jain side was represented by advocate Dinesh P. Rajbhar, who argued that the dispute could not be confined merely to Hindu and Muslim claims because substantial material demonstrated Jain association with the site.
The Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, has remained disputed for decades. Hindu groups maintain that it was originally a Saraswati temple and centre of Sanskrit learning established by Raja Bhoj in the 11th century. Muslim groups, meanwhile, have long used part of the complex as the Kamal Maula mosque and have resisted attempts to alter the status quo.
Under a 2003 arrangement framed by the Archaeological Survey of India, Muslims were permitted to offer Friday prayers while Hindus were allowed worship on Tuesdays and during Basant Panchami.
The Jain petition argued that this arrangement ignored a third historical stakeholder.
According to the petitioners, Bhojshala was not merely a Hindu centre of learning but also a Jain scholarly institution where Sanskrit, astrology, Prakrit literature and Jain philosophy were taught by Jain monks and scholars. They claimed that Raja Bhoj patronised Jain learning traditions alongside Hindu scholarship.
The petition specifically asserted that a Jain Gurukul and a Jain temple once existed within the Bhojshala complex. It argued that Jain citizens had constitutional rights under Articles 25, 26, and 29 to worship at the site.
One of the central pillars of the Jain argument revolved around the identity of the famous idol associated with Bhojshala.
Saraswati v/s Ambika
While Hindu litigants described the idol as Goddess Saraswati or Vagdevi, the Jain petitioners claimed it was actually Ambika, a Jain Yakshini or Jain Vidyadevi associated with knowledge and learning. The petition described the four-armed idol holding a rosary and a book as an important Jain religious symbol.
The Jain side further claimed that the idol had been discovered during British excavations in 1875 and later taken to London. It urged the Indian government to bring back the idol and reinstall it at Bhojshala.
Rajbhar also relied heavily on colonial-era archaeological writings and reports.
He cited the “Report of Ancient Monuments in Central India” published in 1881-82, which described Dhar as an old Hindu city containing structures built out of Jain remains. The report referred to “Jain columns” and architectural similarities between Bhojshala and the famous Jain temples of Mount Abu.
The petitioners argued that the ornamental carvings, pillars, and quadrangles within the complex resembled Jain temple architecture and could not simply be ignored. According to them, such similarities pointed to the existence of substantial Jain structures at the site before later modifications.
The Jain side also referred to inscriptions and sculptures discussed in the Archaeological Survey of India reports. It argued that several images found at the site reflected Jain iconography rather than Hindu symbolism.
Another important aspect of the Jain submission was the claim that parts of the complex were built using remains of older Jain structures. Rajbhar argued that reused temple materials, sculptural fragments, and pillars visible in the mosque structure reflected an earlier Jain presence, similar to what is seen in several Indo-Islamic monuments across north India.
The petition also criticised the Archaeological Survey of India for excluding Jains from the current worship arrangement while recognising Hindu and Muslim claims. It described the exclusion as arbitrary and inconsistent with India’s constitutional commitment to equal treatment of all faiths.
Rajbhar told the court that constitutional courts had a duty to protect even smaller religious communities “whose voices may otherwise remain unheard.”
He argued that the dispute should not be reduced to a “purely Hindu-Muslim controversy” because the site reflected multiple layers of religious and educational history.
Court Rejects Arguments
The High Court, however, rejected these arguments.
In one of the key passages of the verdict, the bench observed that even if the disputed idol were accepted as Ambika rather than Saraswati, that alone would not establish the Bhojshala complex as a Jain temple.
The judges said: “Whether the idol is of Saraswati or of Ambika would not render much assistance to his submission that the disputed area was a Jain temple.”
The court added that no material had been placed before it “either by way of historical literature, architectural features or in ASI survey” conclusively suggesting that the disputed area was a Jain temple.
The bench noted that advocate Rajbhar had pointed to the presence of a Tirthankara image and Ambika iconography in support of Jain claims. But the judges held that these elements were insufficient to establish the site’s primary religious identity as Jain.
Instead, the court accepted the broader Hindu claim that Bhojshala historically functioned as a centre of Sanskrit learning associated with Raja Bhoj and connected to a Saraswati temple.
The bench also observed that Hindu worship at the site had continued in some regulated form over time and that historical references supported the existence of a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati at Dhar.
The Jain petition may have failed legally, but it highlighted an often-overlooked dimension of medieval Indian religious history: many ancient sites carried overlapping Hindu, Jain, and later Islamic influences.
The Bhojshala verdict, therefore, does more than settle competing worship claims. It also reveals how layered histories continue to collide in Indian courts, where archaeology, faith, colonial records, and constitutional rights are increasingly becoming part of modern legal battles.
Have you liked the news article?