Photo: IANS
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear the Kamal Maula Mosque case on Friday after Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi submitted that members of the Muslim community had been unable to offer Friday prayers at the alternative site provided by the Madhya Pradesh government because it was located too far from the disputed premises.
Mentioning the matter before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Ahmadi said the alternative location was around two kilometres from the mosque complex, making it difficult for worshippers to access.
Appearing for the Madhya Pradesh government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta disputed the distance claimed by the petitioners, saying the site was approximately 900 metres away. However, he informed the Court that the State government was working with the local administration to identify a location closer to the Kamal Maula Mosque complex for Friday prayers, Maktoob Media reported.
The Bench directed Mehta to obtain instructions on the feasibility of providing an adjacent site for offering namaz and agreed to take up the matter on Friday.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had declined to restore Friday prayers at the historic Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar. Instead, it directed the Madhya Pradesh government to provide an open space near the disputed site where Muslims could offer Friday prayers between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. while the challenge to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment remained pending.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan had refused to stay the High Court's order or restore the earlier arrangement under which Muslims were permitted to offer Friday prayers alongside Hindu worship on designated days. The Court clarified that the alternative arrangement was purely temporary and would not affect the rights or legal claims of either party. It also directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) not to undertake any structural changes to the monument without prior permission from the Supreme Court.
During the earlier hearing, Ahmadi argued that the Madhya Pradesh High Court had decided disputed questions of fact in a writ petition without a trial. He contended that the High Court had discontinued a long-standing arrangement under which Muslims offered Friday prayers and worshipped on Tuesdays when Hindu rituals were not being conducted. He urged the Supreme Court to restore the arrangement that had been in place since 2003.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the site had long symbolised communal harmony, with both Hindus and Muslims worshipping there on designated days. He submitted that India's layered religious history should not become the basis for reopening historical disputes and maintained that the Supreme Court's Babri Masjid judgment should remain confined to that specific case.
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora also argued that the parties had followed a mutually accepted arrangement since 1995 and that the ASI's 2003 order had successfully balanced Friday prayers, Hindu worship, monument preservation and public order for more than two decades. She questioned the need to disturb a place where Muslims had worshipped for centuries.
Opposing interim relief, Solicitor General Mehta argued that the petitioners had approached the Supreme Court nearly two months after the High Court's judgment. He submitted that restoring the previous arrangement would create administrative complications and reiterated that the State was willing to provide an alternative site for Muslim prayers in line with the High Court's directions.
Responding to the submissions, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the High Court had already delivered a judicial finding on the character of the disputed site and cautioned against passing interim orders that could disturb public order.
The dispute concerns the Bhojshala–Kamal Maula complex in Dhar, which Hindus claim is a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while Muslims maintain that it is the Kamal Maula Mosque.
On May 15, the Madhya Pradesh High Court accepted the Hindu claim based on an ASI survey report, set aside the 2003 ASI arrangement allowing shared religious use of the site and held that namaz could no longer be offered there. The High Court, however, permitted the Muslim community to seek an alternative site from the State for the construction of a mosque.
The High Court's verdict drew comparisons from some critics to the Supreme Court's Babri Masjid judgment, which awarded the disputed site for the construction of the Ram Temple while directing that an alternative plot be allotted to the Muslim community for building a mosque.