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 poročil
Scroll.inNeodvisenSredinaDejstva 95Objektivnost 90pred 7 dneviVrhovno sodišče Indije je zavrnilo ponovno vzpostavitev petkove molitve (namaz) v kompleksu Bhojshala-Kamal Maula v Madhja Pradešu, ki je trenutno v sporu med hindujskimi in muslimanskimi skupnostmi. Vrhovno sodišče Madhja Pradeša je predhodno odločilo, da je kompleks hindujski tempelj, posvečen Sarasvati, in preklicalo odredbo iz leta 2003, ki je dovolila tako hinduistično kot muslimansko čaščenje na določene dni.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku so predstavljeni pravni postopki in odločitve, ki so jih sprejeli različni sodišči, ne da bi očitno naklonjeni bodisi hindujski ali muslimanski skupnosti.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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 TimesNeodvisenSredinaDejstva 92Objektivnost 90pred 3 dneviMuslimani v Dharju v Indiji so zavrnili kraj, ki ga je okrožna uprava dodelila za petkove molitve zaradi njegove oddaljenosti od kompleksa Bhojshala. Vrhovno sodišče je ukazalo dodelitev zemljišča "obkroženo" s kompleksom Bhojshala-Kamal Maula za petkove molitve, vendar je uprava izbrala kraj 1,5 km stran blizu Chalees Peer, svetišča. Voditelji skupnosti trdijo, da je ta odločitev poskus preseljevanja iz območja, medtem ko uprava trdi, da je kraj primeren in potreben, da bi se izognili zastoju. Spor sledi sodbi vrhovnega sodišča, ki je kompleks Bhojshala priznal kot tempelj Saraswati, kar je povzročilo napetosti glede verskih prostorov.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek predstavlja obe strani konflikta - skrb muslimanske skupnosti in upravno utemeljitev - z uravnoteženim poročanjem.
Zakaj dejstva (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
Zakaj 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 HinduNeodvisenSredinaDejstva 90Objektivnost 85pred 7 dneviVrhovno sodišče Indije se je odločilo, da ne bo obnovilo prejšnjega statusa kompleksu mošeje Bhojshala-Kamal Maula, ki je bil prej uporabljen tako za hinduistično čaščenje kot za muslimanske molitve. Po odločitvi višjega sodišča Madhja Pradesha, da je to mesto tempelj, posvečen boginji Sarasvati, je vrhovno sodišče zaprosilo državo Madhja Pradesh, naj zagotovi nadomestni odprti prostor za muslimanske častilce, da bi začasno opravljali petkove molitve, dokler se primer ne reši. Sodišče je poudarilo, da se je treba izogibati napetostim glede "občutljivega" vprašanja in pozvalo obe strani, da se potrpijo.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku so predstavljeni sodni postopki in argumenti obeh strani, ne da bi se očitno naklonjena enemu stališču. V članku so citati zagovorniki, ki zastopajo različna stališča, in poudarjen poskus sodišča, da ohranja nevtralnost, medtem ko obravnava občutljivo naravo spora.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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 TimesNeodvisenSredinaDejstva 90Objektivnost 85pred 7 dnevi Vrhovno sodišče zavrača obnovo namaza v Bhojshali, naroča pa, da se v petek molijo na bližnjem kraju.Vrhovno sodišče Indije je zavrnilo pritožbo, ki je zahtevala obnovitev petkove molitve v kompleksu Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque-Temple v Dharju, ki je bil razglašen za hindujski tempelj s sodbo visokega sodišča v Madhya Pradeshu. Sodišče je odredilo, da je muslimanom dovoljeno moliti na bližnji lokaciji, medtem ko preprečuje kakršne koli strukturne spremembe na mestu, ki jih je izvedla Arheološka raziskava Indije (ASI). Sodniki so poudarili, da se izogibamo odločitvam, ki bi lahko motile družbeno skladnost, in so raje obravnavali zadevo prek pritožbenega postopka, kot da bi izdali začasni nalog.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek predstavlja uravnotežen opis pravnih argumentov obeh strani - pritožnikov, ki zagovarjajo versko svobodo, in vlade, ki poudarjajo upravno izvedljivost.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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 TimesNeodvisenSredinaDejstva 89Objektivnost 93pred 4 dnevi "Bom preučil sodbo SC in sprejel ustrezne ukrepe", je dejal kolektor o vprašanju Bhojshala.Kot je dejal okrožni zbiralnik v Madhya Pradeshu, bo uprava pregledala nedavno sodbo vrhovnega sodišča o sporu Bhojshala, preden bo izvedla kakršne koli ukrepe za ohranitev miru v regiji. Vrhovno sodišče je svoje odredbo naložilo na spletu in zbiralnik je poudaril, da bo uprava skrbno sledila sodnim navodilom. Medtem so predstavniki hindujske skupnosti v Bhojshali pozdravili sodbo sodišča in trdili, da je to mesto tempelj, ter pozvali muslimane, naj sprejmejo to odločitev. Opozorili so, da so na tem mestu vsak dan molili, odkar ga je višje sodišče Madhya Pradesha priznalo kot tempelj.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku so predstavljeni tako hindujski kot muslimanski pogledi na spor v Bhojshali in poroča o upravnem odzodu na odredbo vrhovnega sodišča.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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
★
Ohranimo novice poštene.
ObjectiveNews financirajo bralci in je brez oglasov – pristranskost vam pokažemo, ne skrijemo. Podprite neodvisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mesec.
Postani podpornik
India
