What the Court Ordered for Friday Prayers
An interim Supreme Court order has directed the Madhya Pradesh government to facilitate Friday namaz at the dargah adjacent to the contested Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Dhar. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant set the prayer window from 1 pm to 3 pm every Friday and left the door open for the state and the Muslim community to jointly find a more permanent alternative location.
The order follows weeks of discord over a July 14 directive that had asked the state to provide an open space “adjacent to or near” the disputed site for Friday prayers. Muslim petitioners argued that the location the government subsequently identified was 1.3 to 2 kilometres away, too distant to meet the court’s requirement, and that prayers had already been disrupted.
The larger conflict centres on a 11th-century monument protected by the Archaeological Survey of India. Hindus claim the structure is the ancient Bhojshala temple, while Muslims revere it as the Kamal Maula Mosque. In May 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court declared the religious character of the site to be that of a Hindu temple, scrapped the ASI’s 2003 order that had permitted Friday namaz inside the complex, and told the Muslim side it could apply for separate land to build a mosque. That verdict is now under appeal in the Supreme Court.
The latest order is a practical accommodation: it restores a venue for Friday prayers that Muslim worshippers say is acceptable without disturbing the High Court’s ban on namaz inside the monument itself. The court also reaffirmed that no structural changes may be made to the ASI‑protected site without its approval.
Behind the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Legal Tussle
The steady drip of court orders around Bhojshala illustrates how religious sites across India are being managed through interim judicial arrangements while the core legal questions inch forward. This tactic—allowing worship under conditions—keeps tensions from boiling over but delays a definitive resolution.
The Weight of Archaeological Evidence
An ASI survey report of more than 2,000 pages, commissioned by the High Court, found substantial remains of an earlier Paramara-era temple beneath the existing structure. Those findings heavily influenced the High Court’s conclusion that the religious character of the monument is Hindu. For the Muslim side, the same report acknowledges the later use as a mosque, and they point to a 1935 Dhar State order and British-era accounts that treated the building as a mosque. The Supreme Court will ultimately have to weigh this archaeological record alongside the long history of dual worship.
The Court’s Balancing Act
By refusing to reinstate namaz inside the complex yet providing a dargah nearby, the Supreme Court has signalled it will not let the High Court’s sweeping temple declaration automatically extinguish Muslim prayer rights while the appeal is pending. The explicit permission to explore a mutually agreeable alternative venue also hints that the judges would prefer a permanent, off-site solution—something the High Court had suggested when it told the Muslim side to seek separate land.
What Comes Next
The interim arrangement gives both communities some breathing space, but the substantive hearing on the High Court verdict will decide whether the monument is legally a temple alone. That decision could have wider implications for how ASI‑protected sites with layered histories are adjudicated. For now, Friday prayers at the dargah are the immediate result of a long legal saga that is nowhere near its final chapter.
Comments 0