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 informaciones
Scroll.inIndependienteCentroVeracidad 95Objetividad 90hace 7 dEl Tribunal Supremo de la India se ha negado a restablecer las oraciones del viernes (namaz) en el complejo Bhojshala-Kamal Maula en Madhya Pradesh, que actualmente está bajo disputa entre las comunidades hindúes y musulmanas. El Tribunal Superior de Madhya Pradesh dictaminó anteriormente que el complejo es un templo hindú dedicado a Saraswati, revocando una orden de 2003 que permitía tanto el culto hindú como el musulmán en días específicos.
Lectura del sesgo (Centro): El artículo presenta los procedimientos legales y las decisiones tomadas por varios tribunales sin favorecer abiertamente ni a la comunidad hindú ni a la musulmana.
Por qué veracidad (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.
Por qué objetividad (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 TimesIndependienteCentroVeracidad 92Objetividad 90hace 3 dLos musulmanes en Dhar, India, han rechazado un sitio asignado por la administración del distrito para las oraciones del viernes debido a su distancia del complejo Bhojshala. El Tribunal Supremo había ordenado la asignación de tierra 'cerca' del complejo Bhojshala-Kamal Maula para las oraciones del viernes, pero la administración seleccionó un sitio a 1,5 km de distancia, cerca de Chalees Peer, un santuario. Los líderes comunitarios argumentan que esta decisión intenta reubicarlos del área, mientras que la administración afirma que el sitio es adecuado y necesario para evitar la congestión. La disputa sigue a un fallo del Tribunal Supremo que reconoce el complejo Bhojshala como un templo Saraswati, lo que provocó tensiones sobre espacios religiosos.
Lectura del sesgo (Centro): El artículo presenta a ambos lados del conflicto - preocupaciones de la comunidad musulmana y justificación administrativa - con un reportaje equilibrado.
Por qué veracidad (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
Por qué objetividad (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 HinduIndependienteCentroVeracidad 90Objetividad 85hace 7 dEl Tribunal Supremo de la India ha optado por no restablecer el estado anterior del complejo de mezquitas Bhojshala-Kamal Maula, que anteriormente se utilizaba tanto para el culto hindú como para las oraciones musulmanas. Tras el fallo del Tribunal Superior de Madhya Pradesh de que el sitio es un templo dedicado a la diosa Saraswati, el Tribunal Supremo ha solicitado al estado de Madhya Pradesh que proporcione un espacio abierto alternativo para que los fieles musulmanes realicen las oraciones del viernes temporalmente hasta que se resuelva el caso. El tribunal enfatizó evitar tensiones sobre el tema "sensible" e instó a ambas partes a ejercer paciencia. Además, el tribunal instruyó al Servicio Arqueológico de la India (ASI) a no realizar ningún cambio estructural en el sitio sin la aprobación previa de argumentos legales.
Lectura del sesgo (Centro): El artículo presenta los procedimientos judiciales y los argumentos de ambas partes sin favorecer abiertamente una perspectiva. Incluye citas de defensores que representan diferentes puntos de vista y enfatiza el intento del tribunal de mantener la neutralidad al abordar la naturaleza sensible de la disputa.
Por qué veracidad (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.
Por qué objetividad (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 TimesIndependienteCentroVeracidad 90Objetividad 85hace 7 d El Tribunal Supremo rechaza restablecer el namaz en Bhojshala, y ordena las oraciones del viernes en un sitio cercano.El Tribunal Supremo de la India rechazó una petición que buscaba restaurar las oraciones del viernes en el complejo Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque-Temple en Dhar, que fue declarado un templo hindú por un fallo del Tribunal Superior de Madhya Pradesh. El tribunal ordenó que los musulmanes pudieran orar en un lugar cercano mientras evitaban cualquier cambio estructural en el sitio por el Servicio Arqueológico de la India (ASI). Los jueces enfatizaron evitar decisiones que pudieran perturbar la armonía social y prefirieron abordar el asunto a través del proceso de apelaciones en lugar de emitir una orden provisional. Los peticionarios argumentaron que el fallo del tribunal supremo ignoró las prácticas de larga data de la adoración musulmana en el sitio, mientras que el gobierno argumentó que la implementación del antiguo arreglo ahora causaría desafíos administrativos.
Lectura del sesgo (Centro): El artículo presenta una explicación equilibrada de los argumentos legales de ambas partes: los peticionarios que abogan por la libertad religiosa y el gobierno que hace hincapié en la viabilidad administrativa.
Por qué veracidad (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.
Por qué objetividad (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 TimesIndependienteCentroVeracidad 89Objetividad 93hace 4 d "Estudiaremos la orden de la SC, tomaremos las medidas apropiadas", dice el coleccionista sobre el problema de BhojshalaEl colector del distrito de Dhar en Madhya Pradesh declaró que la administración revisará la reciente orden del Tribunal Supremo sobre la disputa de Bhojshala antes de implementar cualquier acción para preservar la paz en la región. El Tribunal Supremo ha subido su orden en línea, y el colector enfatizó que la administración seguirá cuidadosamente las directivas del tribunal. Mientras tanto, los representantes de la comunidad hindú en Bhojshala acogieron con satisfacción la decisión del tribunal, afirmando que el sitio es un templo e instando a los musulmanes a aceptar este fallo.
Lectura del sesgo (Centro): El artículo presenta perspectivas tanto hindúes como musulmanas sobre la disputa de Bhojshala e informa sobre la respuesta administrativa a la orden de la Corte Suprema. No muestra un sesgo claro hacia ninguna de las partes, proporcionando citas tanto del recaudador del distrito como del representante de la comunidad hindú.
Por qué veracidad (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.
Por qué objetividad (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
★
Mantengamos las noticias honestas.
ObjectiveNews se financia con los lectores y no tiene anuncios: te mostramos el sesgo en lugar de ocultarlo. Apoya el periodismo independiente por 5 €/mes.
Hazte suscriptor
India
