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 izvještaja
Scroll.inNeovisanSredinaČinjenice 95Objektivnost 90prije 7 danaVrhovni sud Indije odbio je obnoviti molitvu u petak (namaz) u kompleksu Bhojshala-Kamal Maula u Madhya Pradeshu, koji je trenutno pod sporom između hinduističkih i muslimanskih zajednica. Vrhovni sud Madhya Pradesha prethodno je presudio da je kompleks hinduistički hram posvećen Sarasvati, poništavajući naredbu iz 2003. godine koja je dopuštala obojicu hinduističke i muslimanske molitve na određene dane.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku se prikazuju pravni postupci i odluke koje su donijeli razni sudovi bez otvorene naklonosti ni hinduističkoj ni muslimanskoj zajednici.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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 TimesNeovisanSredinaČinjenice 92Objektivnost 90prije 3 danaMuslimani u Dharu u Indiji odbacili su mjesto koje je dodijelila županija za molitvu petka zbog udaljenosti od kompleksa Bhojshala. Vrhovni sud naredio je dodjelu zemljišta 'blizu' kompleksa Bhojshala-Kamal Maula za molitvu petka, ali je uprava odabrala mjesto udaljeno 1,5 km blizu Chalees Peera, svetišta.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak predstavlja obje strane sukoba - zabrinutost muslimanske zajednice i administrativno opravdanje - uz uravnoteženo izvještavanje.
Zašto činjenice (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
Zašto objektivnost (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 HinduNeovisanSredinaČinjenice 90Objektivnost 85prije 7 danaVrhovni sud Indije odlučio je da ne vraća prethodni status kompleksu džamije Bhojshala-Kamal Maula, koji se prethodno koristio kako za hinduizam, tako i za muslimanske molitve. Nakon presude Visokog suda Madhya Pradesha da je to mjesto hram posvećen boginji Sarasvati, Vrhovni sud zatražio je od države Madhya Pradesh da pruži alternativni otvoreni prostor za muslimanske vjernike da privremeno obavljaju molitvu u petak dok se slučaj ne riješi. Sud je naglasio izbjegavanje napetosti oko 'osjetljivog' pitanja i pozvao obje strane da pokažu strpljenje.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku su predstavljeni sudski postupci i argumenti s obje strane, bez da se otvoreno favorizira jedna perspektiva.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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 TimesNeovisanSredinaČinjenice 90Objektivnost 85prije 7 dana Vrhovni sud odbija obnoviti namaz u Bhojshali, naređuje molitvu u petak na obližnjem mjestuVrhovni sud Indije odbacio je zahtjev za vraćanje molitvi u džamiji Bhojshala-Kamal Maula u Dharu, koja je proglašena hinduističkim hramom. Sud je naredio da se muslimani mogu moliti na obližnjoj lokaciji, a da se spriječe bilo kakve strukturne promjene na mjestu od strane Arheološkog istraživanja Indije (ASI).
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak predstavlja uravnotežen prikaz pravnih argumenata s obje strane - podnositelja zahtjeva koji se zalažu za vjersku slobodu i vlade koja naglašava administrativnu izvedivost.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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 TimesNeovisanSredinaČinjenice 89Objektivnost 93prije 4 dana Budu proučavati SC naredbu, poduzeti odgovarajuće korake, kaže kolektor na Bhojshala pitanjeOdluka Vrhovnog suda je objavljena na internetskoj stranici i naglašava da će se administracija pažljivo pridržavati sudskih direktiva. U međuvremenu, predstavnici hinduske zajednice u Bhojshali pozdravili su odluku suda, tvrdeći da je to mjesto hram i pozvali muslimane da prihvate ovu presudu.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku su predstavljeni i hinduski i muslimanski pogledi na spor u Bhojshali i izvještaji o administrativnom odgovoru na odluku Vrhovnog suda.
Zašto činjenice (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.
Zašto objektivnost (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
★
Neka vijesti ostanu poštene.
ObjectiveNews financiraju čitatelji i bez oglasa je – pristranost vam pokazujemo, ne skrivamo. Podržite neovisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mjesec.
Postani podupiratelj
India
