The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday denied requests to reinstate Friday prayers at the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Dhar district, Madhya Pradesh, following a ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that classified the site as a Hindu temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati. Instead, the court instructed the state government to designate an open space near the complex for Muslims to conduct Friday namaz between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m., pending a final resolution of the legal dispute. The court emphasized that it wished to avoid creating tensions in a highly sensitive religious and historical matter. The High Court had ruled in May that the complex, long disputed between Hindu and Muslim communities, was a temple and quashed a 2003 order by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that permitted Muslims to offer prayers at the site on Fridays. The High Court also directed the ASI to oversee the site’s administration and conservation. The Supreme Court, however, did not immediately overturn this decision, instead opting for a temporary solution to manage the religious practices of both communities. The Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, expressed concerns about potential unrest if Friday prayers were restored at the disputed site. As an alternative, the court mandated that the state provide an open space adjacent to the complex for Muslim worshippers. The arrangement is described as temporary and subject to the final outcome of the ongoing litigation. Additionally, the court prohibited the ASI from making any structural modifications to the site without explicit approval from the Supreme Court. The dispute centers on the religious identity of the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex, which has long been a point of contention. The Hindu community views the site as a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim community claims it is a historic mosque built during the reign of Alauddin Khilji in the 13th or 14th century. In March 2024, the High Court ordered the ASI to investigate the site following a petition by the Hindu Front for Justice, which argued that the mosque was constructed by dismantling older Hindu structures. The ASI confirmed in July 2024 that the mosque used materials from earlier temples at the site. Following the Supreme Court’s directive, the district administration in Dhar attempted to locate a suitable site for Friday prayers. However, Muslim community representatives rejected a proposed location approximately 1.5 kilometers from the Bhojshala complex, arguing that it was too far from the disputed site. Local Muslim leaders, including Abdul Samad, demanded that the allocated site be closer to the complex, where Sufi gatherings had historically taken place. They expressed concern that the chosen location might be perceived as an attempt to displace the Muslim community from the vicinity. The district collector, Rajeev Ranjan Meena, defended the administration’s choice, stating that the selected site was suitable and near enough to prevent overcrowding and potential law-and-order issues near the Bhojshala complex. He noted that the administration would continue engaging with Muslim leaders to find a satisfactory arrangement for future Friday prayers. Meanwhile, some Hindu community members welcomed the Supreme Court’s interim directive, asserting that the Bhojshala complex should remain a temple and that the Muslim community should accept the judicial determination. Legal arguments presented in the Supreme Court underscored the complexity of the case. Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing the Muslim petitioners, emphasized the importance of maintaining communal harmony and referenced the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991, which aims to prevent religious conversions and disputes over the identity of ancient sites. Another advocate, Huzeifa Ahmadi, criticized the High Court for deciding factual matters without cross-examining ASI officials whose reports supported the High Court’s ruling. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, stated that the High Court’s decision had already been partially implemented and that restoring the previous arrangement would create administrative challenges. The Supreme Court has scheduled further hearings on the matter, with the next session expected in early August. Until then, the interim arrangement for Friday prayers at a nearby site remains in effect, while the legal battle continues to unfold. The court has also indicated that it will examine whether the High Court was justified in determining the religious character of the site through writ proceedings, and whether such actions are permissible under the 1991 law.
5 reports
Scroll.inIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 907 days agoThe Supreme Court of India has refused to reinstate Friday prayers (namaz) at the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Madhya Pradesh, which is currently under dispute between Hindu and Muslim communities. The Madhya Pradesh High Court previously ruled that the complex is a Hindu temple dedicated to Saraswati, overturning a 2003 order that permitted both Hindu and Muslim worship on specific days. While the Supreme Court did not restore the previous status quo, it directed the state government to provide an open area near the site for Muslims to conduct Friday prayers temporarily. The court also instructed the Archaeological Survey of India not to alter the structure without judicial approval. The dispute centers around historical claims regarding the origin of the complex, with the Hindu Front for Justice asserting that the mosque was built by dismantling older Hindu temples.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal proceedings and decisions made by various courts without overtly favoring either the Hindu or Muslim community. It reports on the Supreme Court's refusal to reinstate Friday prayers while providing a temporary solution for Muslim worshippers, maintaining neutrality in措
Why factuality (95): The article faithfully represents the primary source, accurately detailing the court's decision to allow prayers near the site and the refusal to restore the previous status quo. It provides precise information about the court's composition and the nature of the petitions.
Why objectivity (90): The article remains neutral throughout, avoiding biased language and focusing on factual reporting. It presents the court's reasoning and directives without editorializing or showing clear favor towards either religious group.
Hindustan TimesIndependentCenterFactual 92Objective 903 days agoMuslims in Dhar, India, have rejected a site allocated by the district administration for Friday prayers due to its distance from the Bhojshala complex. The Supreme Court had ordered the allocation of land 'near' the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex for Friday prayers, but the administration selected a site 1.5 km away near Chalees Peer, a shrine. Community leaders argue this decision attempts to relocate them from the area, while the administration claims the site is suitable and necessary to avoid congestion. The dispute follows a Supreme Court ruling recognizing the Bhojshala complex as a Saraswati temple, prompting tensions over religious spaces. Local leaders plan to escalate the issue during an upcoming hearing.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both sides of the conflict—Muslim community concerns and administrative justification—with balanced reporting. It includes quotes from multiple stakeholders, including Muslim leaders, the district collector, and a temple committee member, without overtly favoring either side. No
Why factuality (92): The article provides detailed information about the refusal of the Muslim community to accept the allocated site for Friday prayers, including quotes from community leaders and specifics about the locations involved. These details are corroborated by other sources and align with the cross-source con
Why objectivity (90): The article presents the situation from the perspective of the Muslim community and includes direct quotes from community leaders. While it does not explicitly favor one side over another, it focuses more on the Muslim community's response than on the broader legal or administrative implications, wh
The HinduIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 857 days agoThe Supreme Court of India has opted against reinstating the previous status of the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex, which was previously used for both Hindu worship and Muslim prayers. Following the Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling that the site is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, the Supreme Court has requested the state of Madhya Pradesh to provide an alternate open space for Muslim worshippers to perform Friday prayers temporarily until the case is resolved. The court emphasized avoiding tensions over the 'sensitive' issue and urged both parties to exercise patience. Additionally, the court instructed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) not to make any structural changes to the site without prior approval. Legal arguments highlighted concerns over historical religious coexistence and adherence to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal proceedings and arguments from both sides without overtly favoring one perspective. It includes quotes from advocates representing different viewpoints and emphasizes the court's attempt to maintain neutrality while addressing the sensitive nature of the dispute. There
Why factuality (90): The article accurately captures the court's decision to refrain from restoring the status quo and direct a temporary prayer space. It includes the court's rationale about avoiding tension and the prohibition on ASI's actions, aligning well with the primary source.
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral stance, quoting the court's statements directly and avoiding emotionally charged language. It presents the situation objectively without apparent bias toward either religious group.
Hindustan TimesIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 857 days ago Supreme Court declines to restore namaz at Bhojshala, orders Friday prayers at nearby siteThe Supreme Court of India rejected a petition seeking to restore Friday prayers at the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque-Temple complex in Dhar, which was declared a Hindu temple by a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling. The court ordered that Muslims be allowed to pray at a nearby location while preventing any structural changes to the site by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The justices emphasized avoiding decisions that might disrupt social harmony and preferred to address the matter through the appeals process rather than issuing an interim order. Petitioners argued that the high court's ruling ignored longstanding practices of Muslim worship at the site, while the government contended that implementing the old arrangement now would cause administrative challenges.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the legal arguments from both sides—petitioners advocating for religious freedom and the government emphasizing administrative feasibility. While the subject involves religious dispute and constitutional principles, the framing remains neutral, citing legal
Why factuality (90): The article closely aligns with the primary source, accurately reporting the court's refusal to restore namaz at the site and directing a nearby space for prayers. It includes specific timings and mentions the restriction on ASI's actions, which match the primary document.
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting facts without overtly favoring either side. It quotes the court's observations directly and avoids emotional language, making it relatively objective despite discussing a contentious issue.
Hindustan TimesIndependentCenterFactual 89Objective 934 days ago ‘Will study SC order, take appropriate steps,’ says collector on Bhojshala issueThe Dhar district collector in Madhya Pradesh stated that the administration will review the Supreme Court's recent order on the Bhojshala dispute before implementing any actions to preserve peace in the region. The Supreme Court has uploaded its order online, and the collector emphasized that the administration will follow the court's directives carefully. Meanwhile, representatives of the Hindu community at Bhojshala welcomed the court's decision, asserting that the site is a temple and urging Muslims to accept this ruling. They noted that prayers have been offered daily at the site since the Madhya Pradesh High Court recognized it as a temple. The Muslim community had previously challenged the High Court's decision, leading to the Supreme Court issuing notices to the central and state governments. Tensions around the site have persisted, including disputes over religious practices and the placement of idols.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both perspectives—Hindu and Muslim—on the Bhojshala dispute and reports on the administrative response to the Supreme Court's order. It does not exhibit clear bias toward either side, providing quotes from both the district collector and the Hindu community representative. The报道
Why factuality (89): The article accurately reports the Dhar Collector's statement about studying the Supreme Court's order before taking further action. It aligns with the cross-source consensus and provides relevant background on the ongoing legal proceedings.
Why objectivity (93): The article remains largely objective, focusing on the official statements from the district collector and quoting him directly. There is no evident bias or editorializing, though it briefly mentions a Hindu representative's comments, which adds a slight contextual nuance without affecting neutralit
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
India
