Dhar princely state order of 1935 declaring Bhojshala a mosque has no legal validity MP govt in HC

Indore, May 7 (PTI) The Madhya Pradesh government on Thursday told the High Court that an 'ailaan' (government order) issued by the then Dhar princely state in 1935 regarding the religious nature of the Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque has no legal validity in the dispute related to the structure.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
The High Court has been regularly hearing five petitions and one writ appeal since April 6 regarding the religious nature of the Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Masjid complex.
The Muslim side, citing a 91-year-old order of the erstwhile Dhar princely state, claimed Bhojshala was declared a mosque and prayers were allowed to continue inside.
MP Advocate General Prashant Singh, however, challenged the legal validity of the 'ailaan' issued on August 24, 1935 by then Diwan of Dhar princely state and President of the Council of Administration Nadkar.
He argued before Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi of the Indore bench that this princely state order was not the result of a legislative process and, therefore, cannot be considered law.
The 'ailaan' of the former Dhar state violates the constitutional rights of a class and cannot be accepted, Singh added.
Emphasising the background of this order, the state advocate general presented a detailed account of the proceedings of the Dhar Darbar and stated that it was issued after a law and order situation arose in the city due to the controversy over the naming of the disputed monument.
Referring to the proceedings, Singh said the disputed monument has historically been known as Bhojshala, but members of the Muslim community first petitioned the then Dhar State to add the words 'Kamal Maula Masjid' to the board outside the monument, and later requested that the name Bhojshala be removed from the board.
According to the Advocate General, Administrative Council Chairman Nadkar had written in the proceedings that it was impossible to consider this "unreasonable demand" because, based on tradition and history, the monument has been referred to as Bhojshala for a very long time.
Singh read several excerpts from the ASI's scientific survey report of the disputed complex, which included the discovery of sculptural remains depicting Hindu deities and the existence of a large structure dating back to the reign of the Parmar kings of Dhar.
The Advocate General also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute case and requested the High Court to examine the facts of the Bhojshala case based on the judicial principles established by this judgment.
Under a 2003 ASI order, Hindus are permitted to worship at the disputed monument every Tuesday and Muslims every Friday.
Singh termed this a "temporary arrangement" and said a permanent solution to the Bhojshala dispute should be found.
He also detailed incidents of communal tension and violence in Dhar over the years due to this dispute.
The hearing in the case will continue on Friday.

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)