Indore: A Muslim petitioner has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court that there is no historical evidence to support claims that a temple was demolished to construct a mosque at the disputed Bhojshala complex in Dhar district.
Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, appeared for the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society. He submitted before a bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi that assertions regarding demolition lack concrete proof. He argued that there is no verifiable record indicating that a specific temple was destroyed during any particular period to build a mosque at the site.
The court is hearing a batch of petitions concerning the religious character of the Bhojshala complex, claimed by Hindus as a temple and by Muslims as a mosque, as reported by The Observer Post. Hindu petitioners maintain that the site is a Saraswati temple built by Raja Bhoj of the Parmar dynasty, while the Muslim side identifies it as the Kamal Maula Mosque linked to a Sufi saint.
Khurshid contended that the mosque structure was built during the rule of the then administration and not through any act of forcible demolition. He also questioned the historical material relied upon by the opposing side, referring to a 2003 communication attributed to the British High Commission, which he said suggested that a statue believed to be of Goddess Saraswati is in fact that of a Jain deity.
He urged the court to examine all documentary and historical evidence in accordance with legal standards. He also stressed that such disputes must be adjudicated on the basis of established principles governing civil suits.
Referring to the Ayodhya verdict, Khurshid submitted that claims over religious sites must be determined through evidence rather than historical narratives alone.
Citing historical accounts that indicated Dhar as the capital of the Parmar rulers, the senior advocate said, it has witnessed multiple phases of political change and reconstruction. He referred to figures such as Ain-ul-Mulk Multani to argue that shifts in control over the region did not necessarily involve destruction of existing religious structures. The court will resume hearing the matter on Monday.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Lucknow (PTI): The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Friday ordered a probe by the special task force (STF) into alleged irregularities in the rejoining of a teacher at City Intermediate College in Barabanki, observing that the reinstatement appeared to be prima facie illegal.
The court also directed the recovery of the salary paid to the teacher during the disputed period.
A bench of Justice Rajeev Singh passed the order on a petition filed by the college management committee. The court expressed doubts over the roles of the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Barabanki, the college principal and the teacher concerned and hence, directed a detailed inquiry into the matter.
Taking note of alleged manipulation of records and misleading submissions, the court ordered the immediate transfer of the Barabanki DIOS to ensure a fair probe. It also directed the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the then joint director of education of the Ayodhya division.
In its order, the court found that the teacher, Abhay Kumar, was initially appointed as an assistant teacher in 2018 but joined an Eklavya Model Residential School in Chhattisgarh as a lecturer in June 2024 without obtaining permission from the management. His subsequent request to retain the lien was rejected.
Despite this, he was allowed to rejoin the Barabanki College in September 2025 on the directions of the joint director of education and the DIOS, and was even paid the salary for October 2025. The court termed the rejoining "wholly illegal" and lacking any legal basis.
The bench also expressed concern over lapses in communication within the education department and directed the Uttar Pradesh chief secretary to ensure that official orders are communicated through email and WhatsApp as well, to prevent disputes.
The matter is next listed for hearing on May 28 when a compliance report is sought.
