First and foremost: On the Bhojshala ruling

The mixed architecture of the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, has fed uncertainty about its religious identity for more than a century, with the dispute intensifying around the time of the Ram Janmabhoomi mobilisation. The Archaeological Survey of India arranged in 2003 for people of different faiths to take turns using it until a petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court sought a new survey to determine its ‘true’ character. The High Court obliged in 2024. The Supreme Court also allowed the survey to proceed with safeguards. On May 15, the

High Court ruled that the complex had been a Hindu temple and suggested that the Muslim side seek alternative land from the State, while insisting that it was only determining its religious character. The finding, following from Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant’s revival of the Bhojshala proceedings in January, was based on the value of archaeological evidence and the Court’s

2019 Ayodhya judgment, especially the principles of “preponderance of probability” and “faith and belief.” While the

Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 had frozen the religious character of all places of worship as on August 15, 1947, the case proceeded through a loophole in Section 4(3) exempting “ancient and historical monuments” under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958. Given the High Court’s determination, this is a procedural side door that hollows out the Act’s spirit.

The CJI’s involvement also amounts to the Supreme Court staying civil suits while allowing PILs to achieve functionally identical outcomes. The courts may believe that they are neutral adjudicators but they are operating in politically polarised terrain. Groups such as the ‘Hindu Front for Justice’, which initiated parts of the Bhojshala litigation, are politically backed entities using judicial findings to consolidate agitation around contested religious sites. Archaeological ambiguities in mediaeval structures are not new; however, adversarial litigation, in the form of courts asking what was there ‘first’, can introduce arbitrary bounds favourable to the majoritarian political climate. A likely question is: why draw the line at mediaeval conquest and not go back to pre-Hindu histories? The Bhojshala ruling indicates that the

Ayodhya verdict has paved the way to repeatedly challenge the status of minority religious sites if they are also protected by the Survey, extending a record that already includes Gyanvapi, Shahi Idgah, and the Bijamandal complex. The 1991 Act needs to be enforced strictly, with no determinations of religious character except when pertaining to title disputes already pending at the time of its enactment. Equally, shared use should be the norm as democratic coexistence outweighs any questions relating to ‘first’ ownership.