High Court's Bhojshala Verdict: 'Temple Or Mosque' Ends, Hindu Side Wins? HC Finds... | Blueprint

Añadido: 2026-05-15

[00:00:00]Good evening and welcome to blueprint explosive exclusive mazupal Krishna.

[00:00:03]After decades of legal and historical contest, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a landmark ruling on the Bhala Kamal Mola mosque dispute. The Indor bench has recognized the Bhala complex as a temple dedicated to goddess Bvi or Saraswati observing that Hindu worship at the site has continued over time and was never extinguished. The court has also cited historical records and literary evidence linking Bhala to Raja Bhj and its identity as a center of Sanskrit learning. With this ruling, the court has effectively overturned earlier restrictions and reshaped the religious status of the disputed site. Now the high court has declared Bhchala as a temple and these are the major takeaways from what has been stated by the bench.

[00:00:52]They've called Bhchala complex a temple.

[00:00:55]They further called it goddess Saraswati's temple. They further added that Hindus can perform puja in this complex. Namaz is no longer permitted in the complex is what has been stated by the court. ASI's 2003 ruling now stands ineffective. The six takeaway is that Muslims can seek alternate land parcel in which to offer worship. They've also said that both Shalah to remain under ASI's purview. Now the ASI report was submitted in the high court following which both sides made their submissions.

[00:01:27]Let's tell you what the ASI found in their scientific study which was mentioned in their report submitted to the high court. What ESI specifically suggested is one. The first finding is a painting of a thrishul. They had further found a mutilated sculpture of Vishnu and temple remains that were found there. Finding number three, existing structure built on a pre-existing structure. Finding four, superructure of stone was modified and converted to a mosque. The fifth finding, images carved on previous structure were chopped off for reuse in the present structure.

[00:02:02]Finding six, art and architecture and pillars suggest that they were part of temples. Images of deities mutilated for reuse. Finding seven, images include Brahma, Ganesha, Narima, Behava, etc. Finding number eight, inscriptions start with Omnamash Shiva. Finding number nine, the existing structure was made from parts of earlier temples. Finding 10, many Sanskrit inscriptions damaged and reused. Now, reacting to the Bhala verdict, Asudin Oi of the AM has said that he hopes the Supreme Court will overturn the order. OAC also claimed that the ruling bears quote unquote glaring similarities to Babri Mazjid judgment. Here's a reaction from Dhar's Shaher Kazi followed by BJPA Ramshwindu.

[00:03:31]Now reacting to this verdict, the council for the Hindu side, Vishnu Shankar Jan has called it a historic judicial recognition of their claim over Bhala while petitioners are also responding to the implications of the ruling on ground. Listen inable partially compar school. Morning.

[00:04:28]Now speaking to Times now, the DAG of that area has explained how the police and administration is in constant contact with both parties in this particular case and have urged them to respect the decision of the high court.

[00:04:39]He's also explained the multiple layers of security deployed at the spot and that security deployment won't be reduced for now.

[00:04:51]Let's go across to Shbam who's joined us for who's actually got us that particular interview. Shbam now what exactly has DI told you and take us to that particular area? Are there any devotees there who you can speak to as well?

[00:05:08]Well mother now the police authorities have you know removed it the dispersed the authorities they have been chanting the slogans here for like almost two hours now but again as you know this BNS 160 is currently in place more than five people are not allowed here this is the exact spot you can see here also multiple layers of barricating the police officials are also sitting here the RAF officials are also sitting here and this is just one layer of barricading we are one layer inside then there is one layer outside as well of the same barricating this entire area this entire area of almost a kilometer has been barricaded through all the sides because again on the pre behind as well there is a residential area which connects it to the disputed complex which has now been announced officially you know being made as the temple by the by the two judge bench in the Madhab high court on the opposite side hey here just for for a few minutes from now there were people you know chanting the slogans they were doing you know all the celebrations they were playing with colors but for now the security officials have removed them and this is what the DI also said in fact we're going to continue to report from Dhar in Madhya Pradesh. But let's listen in to what the DIG of police told us a short while earlier.

[00:06:28]We have RF, we have uh QRF, you we have SDF, we have Bajarvan, we have Vunan all around at the same time.

[00:06:49]Let's take this across to our guest now.

[00:06:51]Joining us at the moment is Anra Nadu, political analyst. We also have with us Shubra who's founder of the churn.

[00:06:56]Joining us also Sai Sadavas political analyst let me start with you first Shubraashtra very very significant judgment coming in the high court but you have reactions coming in for instance asinui says that there are glaring similarities between what has happened in dha and what has happened in iayodhya >> yes I think I think he's absolutely right and uh we should acknowledge the fact that at least somebody from the Muslim community at large is acknowledging that a similar kind of u uh uh you know cultural appropriation happened and therefore I I I stand with Mr. OCI in sentiment. The thing is OC is hoping that Supreme Court will undo this. This is also part of his statement.

[00:07:38]>> No, he can hope whatever he wants to hope of. I'm just talking purely from the analytical point of view that in our re in our past we have had instances of temples being converted to mosques. uh architecture from the temples uh sculptures from the temp temples pillars etc being used to prop up a mosque and say this is our place of worship and I think it's a part of historical a historical story and one shouldn't dispute that the problem is today do there are two communities at war over this do we have the honesty from one side to say that yes in the past we've had certain uh you know instances where we did convert temples into mosques and then we can perhaps perhaps move forward in a different direction but till that honesty comes until you know there is this whole assertion of supremacy of Hamisha then people are going to dig into past and I think this is this is a natural corary of that if one were to look at the cultural significance of you know the goddess Vde Dvi temple vdevi is not just the goddess Sarasati in her uh you know satwic form it is also a tantric kind of a temple uh there have been there have been associations of this place being a place of imparting learning as well. So there are huge cultural significance uh sorry cultural sentiments attached to this entire site and I think everyone every community has a right to say and assert that this is what this is uh what happened. Let's get a response from Sai this is the bas this is the bus the high court ruling at least has not gone in favor the shahar kazi they saying that he's going to appeal the supreme court but primacy they appear to have gone by what the ASI report has found and ASI report has found a lot of evidence as per that particular report that there was indeed a temple there firstly let us understand that uh the 1991 places of worship act is still very much in existence the fact of the matter we need to understand the high court coming in with uh such a verdict is uh uh quite surprising for me because let us understand from 1947 onwards the character of the place remains the same.

[00:09:45]So therefore now this is in direct contention with the 91 places of worship act. So this is something I'd really like to know from the Supreme Court of a country also. As a matter of fact, the same in the year 2002, there was an agreement which came into the place between both the parties where Tuesdays our Hindu brothers will do their puja at the same place and on the Fridays our Muslim brothers will be uh allowed to offer their namas. The fact of the matter even in the place there even the Khazi did mention that there has been a peaceful atmosphere. Unfortunately there has been a bone of discontention here between the two communities. I would say Supreme Court is supreme and it shall definitely bring justice like we saw uh in earlier cases. This two shall come through. But the fact of the matter we need to understand now. Let us have a peaceful environment. Let us come to agreeable terms. I know I know for a fact that this is a bone of contention.

[00:10:43]I'm not sure of bone of discontention.

[00:10:45]But I can also tell you very clearly sidas that the arguments if you have paid attention to any of the arguments that have been made in the past cases of such disputes is that the argument has always been that places of worship act does not apply to those places which are under the ASI act. That has been an argument that has repeatedly been made.

[00:11:05]But there have also been several cases mad sab where even the ASI has been challenged like even in this case the petitioner in charge has even disagreed on multiple points with the ASI. So therefore >> you can disagree and challenge any body there's nothing is beyond the law. Of course ultimately law is supreme but let me take that across to and would you like to respond to Abbas who says that what happens to the places of worship act and what is its relevance if this kind of order can be given please respond to him?

[00:11:33]Yeah, thank you for thank you for having me on the show. Madav, am I audible, Madav?

[00:11:37]>> Yes, please go ahead.

[00:11:38]>> Mother, Madav, see look in this particular case, Madav, this is again law of the land can be twisted, can be inter, you know, interpreted the way we want. But look at this particular case.

[00:11:51]B Shala is viewed not merely as a temple mother, but it's an ancient seat of Sanskrit learning and civilizational heritage. Now whether that can be challenged, no, that's claim from one side. Now this makes this issue very emotional and cultural not just religious. Now if you see how courts have quote this particular case the high court of Madhya Pradesh has dealt in a very very objective manner where the ASI was asked to do a a very thorough and lengthy survey. It it's it's it runs into multiple years. It's not just about a couple of weeks or days. Now after the findings are put out the judgment is given. Now this is something that we we must appreciate. This is about history and heritage not hostility towards any particular community. Today you know anyone is not nobody's responsible and any solution should preserve peace, dignity and communal harmony. Courts and evidence has to be on the top and not not any anger. Now this is these are this should be our guiding you know principles and decision and we must respect for all faiths and lawful coexistence and that should be the central point. Now it is not about one side winning or one side losing. It's about what is the fact and that fact we all as Indians should respect and should responsibly hold up you know with a high dignity and support each one respond to that at the end of the day you know if we are a society where there is rule of law we have to respect what the courts say sure I mean there have been no you know violent protest or anything of that sort but ultimately everyone has a right to approach the Supreme Court as well notwithstanding that at the end of the day what's being stated by an Naidu is that you have to go by at least for the moment in the absence of any other adverse order what the high court has said and that has to be accepted by all.

[00:13:30]Do you agree with him?

[00:13:32]>> See m medival history is much more complex than we think. It's not a majid has been built and mandr has been demolished. There is a broader perspective of what medieval history is all about. Number first ma ma the places of worship act was brought in with only with this purpose.

[00:13:53]>> No no first explain the point you made on med. No, no, please. Because what you're saying is directly opposing what the high court has said. So, please explain your point before we get into places of worship. When you're saying it's more complex, temple not destroyed, moss not built over it. What do you mean by that?

[00:14:08]>> The only the only reason see every statue has a reason to be brought in.

[00:14:13]The only reason of bringing this statue was was to stop this debate of majid built over a mosque or something. So the only purpose was at some point we want to finish this and from here onwards there would be no majid mos debate in the country. First of all we we the the the whole purpose of the act has been uh override writed by the courts. Number second madan the or the archological survey of India gives only a report. It doesn't give a finding and how to interpret the report is for the courts.

[00:14:47]So we can definitely challenge what the courts have said and the courts do change their opinions on certain things with time. In Babri Majid case the courts relied on ASI. Please tell me what is a what is a what is a report without a finding. Please explain to me Mr. Vani.

[00:15:03]>> What is a report without a finding? You know you're speaking today. You say that medieval history is complex. You refuse to accept that. What is you refuse to justify that? You say that they give a report and report does not have findings. Then what will the court act upon and why do we have reports then if they have no finance?

[00:15:17]>> My point is the report which the ASI gives is not binding on the court.

[00:15:22]>> Of course it's not binding but they will give their interpretation their opinion.

[00:15:25]>> It is for the court to decide.

[00:15:27]>> So it is their finding. Don't say that there are no findings. Come on.

[00:15:30]>> Broader legal principle of prescription also by >> and have you have I hope you have gone through what the high court has said today.

[00:15:36]>> Now if you no let me complete my >> No. Have you gone through what the high court has said today?

[00:15:40]>> I have read the judgment. My point is the broader question of prescription has not been looked by the high court because >> there was a Kamal Musfa mosque there where the Muslims were worshiping for centuries. Yes, and they have actually asked they've actually asked if they want there can be a separate place of worship for Muslims a separate land can be sought. But let me quickly bring in one by one. All right, there's a breaking update coming in. In fact, before I come across to other panelists, a caveat has been filed before Supreme Court by Jitan Singh Vish, the Hindu side litigant is also a petitioner before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It has been prayed in the caveat that he shall be heard by the Supreme Court before passing any order in the Dhar Bchala case. So very significant there subashtra even before the petitioner has reached a caveat has now been filed but please respond to surfwani subashtra >> oh surfwani made a made an argument where he did not really you know expand on it by saying medieval history had certain things let's not go into that I would want to go into that because madhav the root of the contention is right there till the time in this country there is a durable and secular reconciliation over contested sacred sites I don't I think we can have this conversation uh properly that you know deals with the emotional side of things.

[00:16:55]We can deal with with with things constitutionally and legally. After all, Aayodhya the temple at Aayodha has been built. Ram Lala Virajan has happened and we it was fought uh you know it was a very peaceful uh battle of ideas and battle of histories that we we we saw unfold. My problem is not peaceful.

[00:17:15]Sir Faraswani I did not interrupt when you were speaking. I would want the same courtesy to be >> explan of this land. Please >> let's go one by one because we're just eating up into the debating time of each other. Let's not do that.

[00:17:29]>> There has to be honesty about history.

[00:17:32]There has to be civilizational empathy and there has to be voluntary gestures of accommodation without which this burden should not be framed as a collective guilt of present- day communities and medieval actions etc etc. It should be a shared willingness to acknowledge that certain historical wounds have been put on the body politic of this nation on the spiritual and religious fabric of this nation and the the you know the onus of proof lies on the Muslim community and I'm being >> si all right you made your point now I want him to respond to you please >> see mother saying it was peaceful will be injusted to all the people who were killed even supreme court in it judgment recognized that Babri Majid was illegally demolished So the process by which the the the temple was was made in the in Iayodha [clears throat] was not all peaceful in history there has has been demolition of it but the court but the COURT TO THE SUPREME Court again why did the Supreme Court allow the construction sir >> nothing else but Supreme Court recognized that Babri was illegally demolished Supreme Court recognized this IN ITS OWN JUDGMENT SUPREME COURT SAID THAT Babri was illegally demolished.

[00:18:45]>> Even though the verdict came in favor of a group being illegally demolished has been called in the court also. One by one, one by one. Yes. But the court the court ultimately the court has ultimately allowed for the construction of that temple. Ultimately, one second one second. Ultimately, let's just let's just remember one thing that whatever is happening right now, whether it's the high court, whether it's the other cases, if there is an appeal in the Supreme Court, it will go in for that appeal and then that matter will be heard legally speaking. So let's not second guess what the courts will do for the moment. We can have our differences of opinion but ultimately the only way to settle this in any country where there's rule of law is to go through the courts and one has to respect to that extent what Anurra Naidu said whatever the courts say. Anra Naidu Subarashtra Safaraswani Siddhas Labas I'd like to thank all of you for joining us this evening.