“You Can’t Go To Court If Someone Enters A Temple And Offers Namaz”
- Vishnu Shankar Jain
In hearings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore bench), Jain, representing Hindu petitioners, contended that the Bhojshala complex is historically a Sanskrit learning centre and temple site from Raja Bhoj’s Parmar era, and revenue/ASI records refer to it as “Bhojshala.”
Merely offering namaz at a place does not, by itself, convert that place into a mosque or make it Waqf property under law.
Therefore, the 2003 ASI order that permitted Friday namaz at the ASI-protected monument should not be treated as establishing the site’s legal character as a mosque.
The pithy phrasing “you can’t go to court if you enter a temple and offer namaz” captures this core idea: performing a religious act (namaz) inside a structure that is, on evidence, a temple does not automatically change its legal status or defeat the temple-side’s rights.
On 15 May 2026, the MP High Court delivered its verdict:
It declared the Bhojshala complex a temple and granted Hindus the right to worship there.
It partially/quashed the ASI’s 7 April 2003 order that had allowed Friday namaz at the site, holding that henceforth only Hindu worship would take place there.
It directed the state government to consider allotting separate land for a mosque and to consider the Hindu side’s request for repatriation of the Vagdevi idol from the UK.
Jain called the judgment “historic” and said the court had recognised the complex as belonging to Raja Bhoj and set aside the earlier namaz-permission order.
Jain’s argument was specific to the Bhojshala facts (historical records, ASI findings, continuity of Hindu worship, and the legal question of Waqf status). It does not mean that offering namaz anywhere can never have legal consequences; rather, in this case, the court accepted that namaz alone did not establish the site as a mosque or override the temple character established by other evidence.
Credit : SKT Podcast.