📰 Fresh Plea Claims Jain Temple, Gurukul at Disputed Bhojshala–Kamal Maula Mosque Site

A fresh legal petition has reignited the long-standing dispute surrounding the historic Bhojshala–Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Madhya Pradesh’s Dhar district. The plea, filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, claims that the site originally housed a Jain temple and a gurukul (traditional educational institution), adding a new dimension to the already sensitive religious and historical debate.

📌 What the New Plea Says

The petitioner has argued that historical and archaeological evidence points to the existence of a Jain place of worship and a gurukul at the site before it came to be associated with the mosque structure. The plea seeks a detailed scientific and archaeological investigation to establish the original character of the premises.

⚖️ Court Proceedings

During the hearing, government authorities questioned the maintainability of the petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), suggesting that the matter may not qualify under PIL norms. Taking note of these objections, the High Court has granted the authorities two weeks’ time to file a detailed response.

The case has now been listed for further hearing on April 2, when the court is expected to examine both the maintainability issue and the merits of the claims made in the plea.

🏛️ Background of the Dispute

The Bhojshala–Kamal Maula complex has long been a point of contention between Hindu and Muslim communities. Hindus regard Bhojshala as a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while Muslims offer prayers at the Kamal Maula mosque located within the same premises. The site has seen periodic legal battles and administrative arrangements regulating access for both communities.

🔍 What Lies Ahead

The latest plea, introducing claims of a Jain temple and gurukul, could further complicate the legal and historical narrative of the site. The High Court’s decision on whether the PIL is maintainable will be crucial in determining the future course of the case.

As the April 2 hearing approaches, all eyes will be on the court’s stance in what remains one of the region’s most sensitive heritage disputes.