SC permits simultaneous prayers at Bhojshala-Kamal Maula site

Constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act

Judges: Surya Kant CJI, Joymalya Bagchi J, V.M. Pancholi J

Shalom Gauri | 22nd Jan 2026

Today, the Supreme Court heard a Special Leave Petition (SLP) regarding an 11th century site in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh that is disputed to be a Bhojshala temple by certain parties and a Kamal Maula mosque by others. The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V.M. Pancholi also heard the Hindu Front for Justice’s interlocutory application (IA) seeking exclusive permission to observe Vasant Panchami prayers at the site on 23 January 2026 (tomorrow).

The Court disposed of the PIL directing suitable arrangements for both parties to observe prayers simultaneously.

Advocate General Prashant Singh appeared for Madhya Pradesh along with Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj who represented the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid appeared for the mosque committee.

Mutual respect and tolerance

The IA arose from a 2003 order where the Director General of the ASI had directed the Muslim community to access the premises between 1:00PM to 3:00PM for Friday prayers. Meanwhile, the Hindu community was granted access to the premises for traditional ceremonies on the occasion of Basant Panchmai. This year, Basant Panchami falls on a Friday, coinciding with namaz timings. 

Singh sought a direction for the Court to perform namaz after 5:00PM. He asserted that Vasant Panchami prayers must take place from sunrise to sunset. When Justice Bagchi intervened to say that “personally I know, it is only up to 1pm,” Singh reiterated the need for uninterrupted prayers throughout the day. 

CJI Surya Kant asked if namaz could be performed after 5pm. Khurshid responded that Jummah namaz must be performed before 3:00PM and submitted that all they required was a minimum slot. 

Nataraj suggested that special arrangements could be made for namaz to take place between the 1:00PM to 3:00PM slot if a tentative number of persons could be shared by the mosque committee. Khurshid agreed to provide an approximate figure as long as separate entry and exit points were provided. When Singh pointed out that there was only one gate, Nataraj offered that barricades could be set up to ensure separate passages. He then requested that numbers be provided by the end of the day so that passes can be made to regulate entry.

The Bench agreed to the suggestion. 

No opinion on merits

On 11 March 2024, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed an interim order permitting scientific examination of the disputed premises. An SLP was filed by the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, Dhar to challenge this order. On 1 April 2024, the Supreme Court issued an interim order stating that no action be taken on the outcome of the survey. Further, no physical excavation should be undertaken which will alter the character of the site. 

Today, Nataraj submitted that the scientific survey directed by the High Court had been completed before the Supreme Court’s interim order of 1 April. The report is presently lying in a sealed cover before the High Court, he said. Khurshid requested that a copy of the report be supplied to the parties and thereafter the petitioner be permitted to submit the objections if any.

CJI Surya Kant noted that a fair stand had been taken by all stakeholders and clarified that since the controversy is still subjudice before the High Court, “we do not express any opinion on the merits of the subject issue.” 

The Bench disposed of the SLP with the following terms:

  1. The writ petition pending before the High Court may be taken up by a Division Bench preferably headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the senior most judge of the High Court.
  2. The Division Bench may be requested to unseal the report in open court and supply copies thereof to both sides. If there is such a part of the report that cannot be copied, the parties may be permitted to inspect such part of the report in the presence of the experts and the advocate. Thereafter the parties may be granted two weeks time to submit their respective objections/opinion/suggestions/recommendations.
  3. The Division Bench may thereafter take up the case of final hearing and all the objections etc may be duly considered at the time of final hearing. 
  4. In such time, until the writ petition is finally decided, the parties shall maintain status quo and shall continue to abide by and follow the order dated 7 April 2003 issued by the Director General of the ASI.  

Challenge to the Places of Worship Act, 1991

Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay urged the Bench to address the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. He submitted that the Act is the pith and substance of all tagged issues. He stated that the question of law was framed in 2022, nodal counsels appointed in 2024, but no substantial hearing had taken place in a year. Pointing out that the Court had considered reference to a larger bench in the previous hearing, Upadhyay asked the Bench to consider the same due to national ramifications of the case. 

CJI Surya Kant refused and said another date would be given for the main matter to be heard.