The dispute over Bharuch’s 14th-century Jami Masjid has reached the Gujarat High Court, with five local petitioners seeking immediate protection for an idol of Jainism’s 19th Tirthankara Mallinath, reportedly found during an inspection of the mosque complex earlier this year.
According to a report by Divya Bhaskar, the petitioners, including Harishankar Jain and Rahul Diwan, have also sought permission to worship the idol within the premises. The petition names the Union government, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the Gujarat government and the Jami Masjid management committee as parties.
The petitioners’ lawyer told the court that the Jami Masjid has been an ASI-protected monument since 1909 and is covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The law protects monuments of national importance and restricts changes to their original character, the petitioners’ submissions stated.
The lawyer also raised concerns about the safety of the idol, saying it held significant religious importance for the Jain community. The petition seeks urgent directions to ensure its protection while the dispute is considered by the court.
The Gujarat government and the Bharuch collector made submissions during the hearing, and, according to the report, indicated that there was substance in the petitioners’ arguments. After hearing the submissions of the parties, the High Court deferred further proceedings to October 9.
The dispute began after the Mallinath idol was reportedly found in the basement of the historic mosque during an investigation earlier this year. The mosque is associated with the period of Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq. Following the discovery, members of local Hindu and Jain communities organised a rally, according to the report.
The ASI had earlier asked the Bharuch collector to ensure intensive security at the monument to prevent any untoward incident. The request places the local administration at the centre of a wider challenge: maintaining public order while safeguarding an officially protected heritage structure during a dispute over its religious history and use.
The case also raises questions about how protected monuments are managed when archaeological features, religious practices and competing claims intersect. Under the framework cited in the petition, any intervention affecting the monument’s original form would have to be considered within the legal protections applicable to an ASI-protected site.
The High Court’s next proceedings will determine how the petitioners’ request for protection of the idol and permission for worship is addressed. Until then, the matter remains before the court, while security arrangements at the Bharuch Jami Masjid remain an administrative responsibility of the authorities.
