Bhojshala Verdict News | Temple or Mosque? | MP High Court Decides on Dhar Dispute | News18

Added: 2026-05-15

[00:00:00]Welcome back. Thanks for staying tuned to CNN News8. I'm Kitwin Valia. First up, we're starting with some important breaking news update coming in. This is with regards to the high court verdict in the Bhalala case, the Bchala Temple Kamill Ma Mosque case. The pronouncement has now begun in the Madhya Pradesh High Court is what we're learning. In fact, we're also picking up initial details of what the court has said. The court says we have considered all the aspects including the survey report. Do remember the ASI report survey was also submitted and the court did hear all the arguments previously and the pronouncement of verdict as we speak has just begun. So the botchala pronouncement begins in Madhya Pradesh High Court and the first big word coming in from the court is the acknowledgement of the fact that all aspects including the survey report have been considered. So Madhya Pradesh High Court now pronouncing its verdict on Bhala case and says all relevant documents all aspects including the survey report. This is the ASI survey report remember have been taken into account that the court has considered all the important aspects the biggest aspect the big biggest asset to the story remember is of course the SI survey. I do want to go across to Anand Nariman who joins us with more details.

[00:01:20]What more are we learning from the court Anand?

[00:01:23]>> Well most importantly right now the pronouncement of the judgment would be is is currently happening. We'll uh the court will make a summary of all the arguments that have been placed before.

[00:01:33]It will thank all the councils and then thereafter come to the pronouncement. As of now this hearing is happening post the namaz that is allowed every Friday at the Kamal ma mosque which the Muslim Temple of Goddess.

[00:02:15]ASI will take decision with affairs of temple.

[00:02:36]All right. So, Band, you have to cut across to those live visuals coming in.

[00:02:39]At the moment, it appears it's a it's a big victory for the Hindu side.

[00:02:44]>> Yes. As of now, as of now, the court has said that the ASI holds the right to preserve the temple and the because it's an ASI protected monument. The court has also observed that the ASI report categorically states that this uh the remnants there and the remains there are of a Hindu temple belonging to goddess Wag Dvi which was built by Raja Bhuja.

[00:03:06]And whether or not regular puja will be offered and henceforth the claims of the Muslim pak with respect to the Kamal Mola mosque will be honored or adhered to or not is now unclear. We are still waiting for that part. But the ASI will continue preservation of the monument and of this historical site is what the court has at the moment said. It has also said that uh every government has a constitutional obligation to ensure preservation protection of not only ancient monuments or structures, not only temples of archaeological and historical importance but also of the sanctum sanctorum. The moment the word sanctum sanctorum are mentioned, it is indicative that the court has a agreed the findings or admitted the findings of the ASI report that runs into more than 2,189 pages where the ASI through spectral imaging and also all other scientific methods and measurements and also looking at the physical evidence present there had determined that this is indeed a Hindu site and what predates the claim of a mosque is the presence of a temple in the name of goddess Wagdevi or goddess Saraswati built by Raja Bhoj.

[00:04:18]Now the court has also added this mention of sanctum sancturum. So a religious site can either be sanatan or hindu in nature or it can be Muslim in nature. It cannot be both because the modes of prayer, the modes of worship are different and uh and that is the that is the other part whether or not the court dips into the Ramjan bumi verdict and also comes out where the Supreme Court have observed that as per the Islamic rules itself a place of prayer in Islam has to be built from ground up. It cannot be built over another existing place of prayer. Now will they consider that in this judgment? We had to wait and watch. But if the even under the places of worship act 1991 and also under the archeological survey or uh ancient monuments act again the core nature the original nature of the of the place of the premise has to be uh is what will uh supersede any other claim. So in this case it's not about title it's about what is the original nature of this place and the moment the court mentions the word sanctum sancttorum then uh obviously the indication is that a sanctum sancttorum is there only in Hindu places of worship or sanatan place of worship non-Abrahamic places of worship or prayer there is no place for worship in Abrahamic faiths it's prayer so in this case it's if a sanctum sanctorum comes into play only if there is a dity that's been placed there and that is the sanctum Santorum of the deity in this case of goddess vagi or goddess Saraswati.

[00:05:49]>> Okay. Anand you know quickly recapping what we've heard from uh the bench currently and then I'll come back to you in just a couple of seconds. So the indor bench of Pradesh High Court stating uh that providing basic facilities to pilgrims making proper arrangements at certain places maintain maint maintaining law and order constitutional duty. The bench has said we have noted continuity of Hindu worship at the site here has never been extinguished. We record findings of the historical literature places established the character of the dispute area was Bhchala as center of Sanskrit learning associated with Raja Bhoj of the Par dynasty. So the original character of Bhchala was a center of Sanskrit learning with the presence obviously as the as the faithful or the believers claim that it was named after uh vagi goddess Vagdevi or goddess Saraswati the center of learning and Saraswati is the goddess of vidya or learning so that's the reason why the court has upheld the original character as being sanaton or hindu in nature >> the high court holding that original character of bhala was center of Sanskrit learning and in that sense that stands confirmed Anand at the moment that this is indeed a big big victory for >> there's more been interrupting you there the Muslim side can approach the government for a separate land in Dhar district to continue their prayers so this is in line with the RJB verdict where the Muslim Pak was allotted land elsewhere in Aayodhya as per the place of their choosing and they were allotted a certain amount of land in this case also the court saying that the Muslim Pak can ask for separate land which as per the Islamic rules or Sharia is uh duty obtained and uh uh with uh ensuring that there is no other claimment and that land is clean. So as far for building of a mosque so the title is clear. So that is something which is underlying principle as a place of prayer uh with respect to Islam and that is something the court seems to have underlined saying we can get you separate land in dhar at a separate place but this place is belongs to the Hindu pak because its original character or nature is a center of learning or teaching Sanskrit and that's why the dedication to goddess Saraswati as the goddess of learning >> okay based on the 2003 SI arrangement you know Hindus were allowed allowed to worship at the complex on Tuesday. As far as Muslims are concerned, they were allowed to offer namas on Friday. So, what happens to that? We'll come back to you in just a bit. Live reactions coming in. Let's cut across