The Supreme Court on Thursday directed that, as an interim arrangement, members of the Muslim community may offer Friday namaz at a site comprising Khasra Nos. 596 and 611 near the Bhojshala complex in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, while leaving it open to the parties to mutually agree upon any other suitable adjacent site.
The appellants challenged the Collector’s decision identifying a site nearly 1.3 kilometres away from the Bhojshala complex for Friday prayers despite the Supreme Court’s earlier interim order directing that an “adjacent or near” open space be provided.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the appellants, argued that the Collector’s order was inconsistent with the Court’s earlier directions. He submitted that the site identified by the administration was neither adjacent nor near the disputed complex and pointed out that four alternative plots of Waqf land immediately adjoining the complex had been proposed.
“
“I also have a right of freedom of expression in terms of my prayer. Merely because someone threatens a law and order problem, Your Lordships will not yield. So there is something much larger at stake apart from the fact that it is Your Lordships’ own order which says ‘adjacent or near to’.”
During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana closely examined maps and questioned the State regarding one of the alternative plots marked in yellow on the site plan. After it emerged that the State had not specifically objected to Khasra No. 596, the Court observed: “Then yellow can be offered.”
The State, represented by Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, maintained that its primary concern was maintaining law and order rather than opposing any particular parcel of land. He submitted that certain sites earlier proposed were unsuitable on account of security considerations but indicated that the administration could take fresh instructions regarding Khasra No. 596.
After hearing both sides, the Bench directed that Friday namaz be permitted on land comprising Khasra Nos. 596 and 611, with separate arrangements for ingress and egress, beginning from the upcoming Friday. The Court clarified that the arrangement was interim and that the parties were free to negotiate a more suitable site by mutual consent.
Mr Huzefa also requested that the appeal remain pending so that, if difficulties arose in implementing the interim arrangement, the parties could seek further directions. The Bench observed that if the parties mutually agreed upon another appropriate location, they were free to do so and seek suitable modification if necessary.