Bhojshala Dispute Not Just Hindu-Muslim Issue: Why Jain Community's Claims Were Rejected By MP High Court?

Last Updated:May 15, 2026, 22:26 IST

The Indore bench of the High Court, while declaring the site a Hindu temple, dismissed the Jain intervention

While the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Complex dispute in Dhar is often framed as a binary conflict between Hindu and Muslim communities, the legal battle in the Madhya Pradesh High Court featured a significant third claimant. The Jain community presented a distinct set of arguments, asserting that the 11th-century monument was originally a Jain shrine rather than a temple of Goddess Saraswati or a mosque. On May 15, the Indore bench of the High Court, while declaring the site a Hindu temple, dismissed the Jain intervention. Understanding why these claims were rejected provides a clearer picture of the complex layering of Indian history and law.

What was the core claim made by the Jain community?

The Jain petitioners argued that the Bhojshala complex was originally a temple dedicated to Jain Vidyadevi or Goddess Ambika. Central to their argument was the famous white marble idol discovered at the site in the late 19th century, which is currently housed in the British Museum in London. The Jain side contended that the iconography of this idol—specifically the presence of a small Jain Tirthankar figure seated above the main deity—conclusively proved its Jain origin. They asserted that the site served as a Jain place of learning and worship before medieval interventions changed its character.

How did the High Court view the ‘Ambika vs Saraswati’ debate?

The court held that the specific identity of the idol—whether it represented the Hindu Goddess Saraswati or the Jain Goddess Ambika—was not sufficient to alter the overall character of the complex. The bench observed that in the 11th century, during the reign of King Bhoja, there was significant overlap between Hindu and Jain iconographies.

The court noted that the presence of Jain motifs alongside Hindu deities like Ganesha, Vishnu, and Narasimha was natural, given that Jainism is historically and legally viewed as part of the broader Indic religious spectrum. Crucially, the court stated that the mere presence of a Tirthankar figure on an idol did not transform the entire Bhojshala, which was established as a centre for Sanskrit learning, into a dedicated Jain temple.

Why did the ASI survey fail to support the Jain claims?

A major factor in the rejection was the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The 2024-25 scientific survey unearthed 94 sculptures and over 150 Sanskrit inscriptions. While the Jain side pointed to specific recovered figurines as evidence of their heritage, the court found no “structural or architectural" evidence to suggest the complex functioned exclusively as a Jain temple.

The inscriptions, which are largely dedicated to Sanskrit grammar and Hindu praise-poems (Kavyas), strongly supported the site’s identity as the Bhojshala (King Bhoja’s School). The court ruled that historical literature and architectural features overwhelmingly favoured the “Bhojshala" narrative over the Jain temple theory.

What is the legal implication of this rejection?

By dismissing the Jain petition, the High Court clarified that the legal character of a monument is determined by its predominant historical purpose and structural foundation, rather than individual artefacts found within it. The court effectively merged the Jain heritage into the larger Hindu-Bhojshala identity for legal purposes. For the Jain community, the verdict means that while their historical link to the region is acknowledged, it does not grant them exclusive or separate rights to the site under the current legal framework.

News india Bhojshala Dispute Not Just Hindu-Muslim Issue: Why Jain Community's Claims Were Rejected By MP High Court?

Read More