Vagdevi idol from Dhar palace ruins, not Bhojshala: HC told

Indore: An intervener in the petition by Hindu Front for Justice on Bhojshala-Kamal Maula mosque dispute on Saturday told the Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh high court that the statue of Vagdevi housed in British Museum and ‘presented' to be excavated from the disputed site, was actually found among ruins of Raja Bhoj's palace.Advocate Ashhar Warsi, appearing for the interveners, placed British Museum records before the bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, establishing that Major General William Kincaid recovered the Vagdevi statue from ruins of Dhar's city palace in 1875. He backed this with maps showing that the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula mosque complex falls entirely outside the boundaries of the erstwhile city palace. "The petitioners have abused the law by placing forged documents before this court," Warsi told the bench.Warsi, who claimed that he represented ‘the Muslim community of Dhar' apart from the interveners, submitted that the petitioners have failed to produce conclusive proof that Bhojshala was ever a temple. Their case, he argued, rests on architectural similarities to suggest the existence of a Goddess Saraswati temple. He pointed out that the name 'Bhojshala' is a colonial-era coinage, emerging in the late 1800s when the British began referring to the site as ‘Raja Bhoj's School.' The site, he said, has been identified as the Kamal Maula mosque.Warsi told the court that Hindu prayers at the site are documented only from 1952, when a demand was first raised for holding a Bhoj Utsav — a demand the then Director of the Archaeological Survey of India rejected, stating that the site was a mosque.Citing a Dhar State Gazette of 1935, Warsi submitted that the document refers to the site as a mosque. "The exact words were that it shall remain a mosque and the absolute right to worship remains with the Muslims," he said. On the question of ownership, Warsi countered the petitioners' contention that the site is not Waqf land. Following a survey, the land was declared Waqf property in 1985. A statutory one-year window for objections was provided. He also noted that the petition was filed in 2022 and the Waqf Amendment Act came into force in 2025, yet the petitioners made no corresponding amendments to their petition.Warsi argued that since the property is Waqf land, any challenge to that status should have been brought before the Waqf Tribunal or through a civil suit — not as a PIL before the High Court. "The petitioner should have filed a civil suit or moved the tribunal," he said.Warsi also invoked Section 4 and Section 13 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and Section 3 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, to establish that the disputed site is a mosque under ASI custody and that its character cannot be altered.The court has scheduled the next hearing for April 20, when Warsi will continue his arguments.