Demolitioncan’terasedeity’s legal standing, saysHindu Front for Justice atBhojshalahearing

Indore:The Hindu Front for Justice(HFJ)on Wednesday told the Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh high court that itsclaim to exclusive worship rights atBhojshala-Kamal Maula complex restedon two pillars: that a Hindu temple existed at the site before the current monument was built, and that the deity's sacred purpose endures regardless of what has happened to the physical structure since.Appearing before a bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, HFJ counsel Vishnu Shankar Jain drew extensively from the court verdicts in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case and the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-ShahiIdgahcase to argue that a deity's juristic personality — itsrecognisedstatus as a legal person — does not dissolve when an idol or its housing structure is destroyed."The contention is not that since we were worshipping (atBhojshala), we have the right to worship. But that the temple existed prior (to the currentmonument),we have the right to worship," Jain told the court.He outlined three core questions before the bench: whether a temple pre-existedthe current structure, whether it was demolished, and which party holds temporal priority. "If I am able to establish that a temple was pre-existing… then the legal personality will not diminish," hesubmitted.Tracing the legal evolution of deity jurisprudence through the Ayodhya verdict, Jain argued that Hindu idols arerecognisedas juristic persons in Indian law, and that the"pious purpose"animating a consecrated temple outlives even its physical destruction. "Once a temple, always a temple," he contended, adding that demolition cannot erase the deity's legal standing. He went further, asserting that ‘after demolishing a Hindu idol… the deity exists at the site in invisible form',thereby preserving the rights of devotees to worship there.Jain also argued that once a temple is consecrated through the rituals of ‘Pran Pratishtha' and ‘Sankalp',the deity's legal personality isestablishedin perpetuity — irrespective of whether the temple issubsequentlydemolished or the idol damaged.Turning to the historical record, he cited affidavits filed by the respondent no. 8, Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, to argue that the case's own respondents had acknowledged the existing mosque was constructed by Alauddin Khilji in 1305ADafter demolishing a Saraswati temple, and that temple material was used in its construction. "Records clearly prove beyond doubt that a temple pre-existedthe current monument," he said.On the constitutional dimension, Jain invoked Article 13(1), whichrenderspre-constitutional laws void to the extent they conflict with fundamental rights, like the freedom to practice religion guaranteed under Article 25. He argued that Khilji's act of demolishing the temple, being inconsistent with these rights,"automatically turns void".Addressing the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, Jain noted that while Section 3 bars the conversion of places of worship — a provision that supports his case if the site is proven to have originally been a temple — Section 4(3)(a) explicitly exempts ancient historical monuments and archaeological sites governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.Bhojshala, he argued, falls within that exemption and is therefore outside the Act's purview.Jain also challenged the respondents' reliance on a Jan 18,1985waqf notification, citing Section 3D of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, whichrendersvoid any declaration or notification relating to a protected monument. He further argued that under Islamic law, a valid waqf requires both ownership by the wakif and a formal deed of dedication — neither of which exists in this case."In this particular case, there is no deed of dedication, and there is not a valid waqf," he submitted.The hearing is set to continue for a fourth consecutive day on Thursday.