Dispute over location of alternative prayer site Supreme Court accepts mention July 29 on alternative venue for Friday prayers near Dhar The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an urgent interim application on July 29 concerning the location of a temporary alternative prayer site for Friday namaz adjacent to the disputed Bhojshala complex at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh. The lawyer for the local Muslim community informed the court that the site suggested by the administration was not in proximity as was necessary. The matter was raised by Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, for the petitioners, at the end of the court proceedings as it did not figure in the daily cause list.
The community missed the last two Friday prayers as the ground suggested by the local authorities was too far away from the premises.
We move for the venue; this defeats the entire purpose of having a substitute venue when we don’t have any alternate venue, Ahmadi said and added that he is moving the matter as the entire congregation has been kept at the location 1.3 km away which is an absolute violation. The lawyer of the Muslim community argued: You know that the entire congestion of the town passes through between this and… We don’t have helicopters…at the end, it has to be something that people access, we don’t reach the site in straight lines. When the two prayer gatherings have to be at a distance that can be reached either on foot or using local vehicle transports for the people.
The location has to be something close, he insisted and demanded to shift the place for namaz since the administration had kept it very far from the main complex of the site.
He said the purpose of creating an alternate prayer site will be lost since people of the community will have to undertake long, tiresome trips. “The Supreme Court on February 8 directed the administration to arrange an alternative space near the temple so that the local community can perform their religious activities after a separate plea was made by the state government before the top court seeking direction for granting of place for alternate praying venue”. “The court stated, we are keeping these issues open but for the time being and only for the week only subject to you people sorting out the logistics in the neighbourhood it may be alright to permit.
For two consecutive weeks it would be so inconvenience it can’t be like this,” court said. The chief justice directed the bench to also examine and direct the state government to find appropriate space by week. Meanwhile, a heated exchange took place during mention before the bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant during mentioning where counsel for the state Tushar Mehta asserted that the alternate space was “not 1.3 kilometers away, rather at 900 meters distance.”ahmadi said this is aerial distance.
He contended, when the court had asked to provide space “near to the main premises” of Bhojshala, but district officials instead provided an alternate place “at 1.3 kilometres by road.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the apex court to not be influenced by “dramatic submissions” and said authorities were working to address logistical constraints and identify suitable open spaces in the area.” State is acting to provide accommodation, and is working tirelessly”, he urged. The bench fixed the petition for July 29 for formal argument, giving adequate time to state to submit comprehensive instructions to the court regarding the new location and related facilities. The Muslim side had appealed the High court ruling before the apex court wherein it held that the 11th century monument located in Dhar was part of a Hindu temple (Vagdevi Goddess) while the ASI had in 2003 passed a decree under which Hindus prayed on Tuesdays, and Muslims offered prayers between 1 p.m and 3 p.m.
On February 8, the apex court refusing to stay the High Court order or permit the continuance ofnamaz within the site has clarified that only until arrangements can be made for Friday prayers for local Muslims at a plot adjoining the disputed premises, the administration is to carry out the ASI arrangement as an interim measure for harmonious coexistence during court pendency and in future pending the appeals.
