Indore: Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, mounted a sharp challenge to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey report on the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque complex before the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday. He alleged manipulation of evidence and violations of court-mandated procedures.
Allegations of Evidence Tampering
Appearing before the bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi, Khurshid claimed that pillars and artefacts were “brought from outside and placed inside” the disputed complex in Dhar with the intent to alter the site’s religious character and engineer a particular public narrative. He pointed to a room within the complex that had remained under ASI control since a 1997 order by the Dhar collector. The room was kept locked — apparently used to store ASI equipment — and was opened on March 30, 2024. Inside, artefacts “clean of soil or debris” were found excavated in a corner, with plastic bottles visible beneath them in images submitted by the ASI itself. “This gives a different narrative,” Khurshid told the court.
Undisclosed Buddha Statue and RTI Findings
Khurshid further claimed that a Buddha statue was recovered from the site but never disclosed by the ASI. A reply to an RTI application concerning excavated statues — catalogued as figures A1 to A18 — indicated that the agency itself was unaware of their origin, he said. He questioned the physical condition of inscriptions produced as excavated evidence, asking how newly dug structures could appear free of any soil. The inscriptions looked as though they had been cleaned with chemicals.
Questioning the Persian Inscription
Khurshid also flagged the ASI’s reliance on a Persian inscription — found 1.5 kilometres from the site — to suggest that Muslim invaders demolished a temple to construct a mosque, pointing out that the ASI’s brief for the survey was limited to a 50-metre radius around the complex. He argued there was no conclusive proof of any demolition and drew attention to two 13th–14th century temples — Jhirnia temple and Dhaneshwari temple — located adjacent to the disputed site. “Even if it was to be believed that temples were demolished, how were these temples left out?” he asked.
Dispute Over Tank Structure and Carbon Dating
On a tank-like structure at the centre of the complex, Khurshid argued it was designed for wuzu, or ablution, and had a proper inlet and outlet. He contended that stairs were subsequently introduced to recast it as a havan kund. He pressed the court on why the ASI had not carried out carbon dating to establish the age of artefacts (like the stairs to the wuzu pond), as directed. His assisting counsel Tousif Warsi elaborated that while the agency cited stone structures to avoid carbon dating, techniques such as RadioCarbon Dating, Optical Structural Luminescence, and Thermo Luminescence Dating were all applicable and were ignored.
Challenges to Excavation Process and Videography
Khurshid also challenged the legality of the excavation process itself, arguing that both the Supreme Court and HC orders envisaged scientific methods of investigation, not physical digging capable of altering the site. He alleged the survey was conducted simultaneously at multiple locations, in violation of directions requiring representatives of all parties to be present. The videography supplied by the ASI, he noted, comprised only short clips — many under 45 seconds — rather than continuous recordings of the survey and excavation. He further alleged that confidential information was leaked during the 2024 survey to shape public opinion.
Interpretation of Inscriptions
On the interpretation of inscriptions referencing Saraswati Sadan and learning centres, Khurshid submitted these points only at an educational or cultural institution. “Places of learning were known to host idols of Saraswati,” he said.
Triangular Dispute and Civil Suit Argument
Earlier, counsel for respondents, senior advocate Shobha Menon described the dispute as triangular — between Hindus, Muslims and Jains — for ownership or title of the complex, which should have been sought in a civil suit. She referred to petitioners’ arguments and said no proof or records could be produced to establish the presence of a temple or ‘prana prathishta’ (consecration) of an idol.
