Pleas seeking ownership rights of Bhojshala not maintainable: Intervenor to High Court
An intervenor in the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Masjid dispute has argued before the Madhya Pradesh High Court that two PILs filed by Hindu parties effectively seek ownership of the protected 11th-century monument and are not maintainable under writ jurisdiction.
The Hindu side considers Bhojshala, located in Dhar district, a temple of Vagdevi (Goddess Saraswati), while the Muslim community claims it as Kamal Maula Masjid.
Senior advocate Shobha Menon, appearing for intervenor Munir Ahmad and others from the Muslim community, on Monday raised objections to the maintainability of the petitions before an Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi.
She submitted that disputes over property ownership fall within the domain of civil courts and cannot be adjudicated directly by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution (dealing with HC’s power to issue certain writs).
Menon said the two petitions — filed by the organisation ‘Hindu Front for Justice, and by one Kuldeep Tiwari and another petitioner — were similar in nature.
“The core prayer in both petitions is that only Hindus should be allowed to worship at the disputed monument, which effectively amounts to seeking ownership rights (of the site),” she claimed.
Menon argued that the petitioners were seeking the determination of their rights and formation of a trust, which indicates a claim over ownership and, therefore, cannot be pursued as public interest litigation (PIL).
The senior counsel questioned the locus standi of the petitioners, arguing that merely claiming to be a social activist does not entitle a person to file a PIL.
She contended that courts have consistently required proof of bona fide work for disadvantaged sections in PIL matters.
The intervenor further claimed that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which protects the monument, and the Government have taken differing stands over the years regarding the nature of the structure.
