The Gujarat High Court has sought a response from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to a petition seeking recognition of Bharuch’s 14th-century Jami Masjid as a Jain-Hindu temple and permission for worship at the protected monument.
The petition was filed by members of Jain and Hindu communities, who have asked the court to direct the ASI to rename the monument Ashwabodh Tirth and Shakunika Vihar and change its entry in the agency’s list of protected monuments. The matter was heard by Justice Nisha Thakore, who directed the ASI’s counsel to obtain complete instructions on the submissions made by the petitioners.
The petitioners claimed that the ASI had incorrectly identified the structure as a mosque in its records since 1909, arguing that the monument had the characteristics of a Jain-Hindu temple. They relied on historical books and said new evidence that emerged in June indicated the presence of idols, including that of Jain Tirthankar Mallinath, in the basement of the structure.
They also alleged that some pillars had been damaged after the reported discovery and expressed concern that the idols could be destroyed or desecrated. Photographs and a video clip were submitted to the court in support of their claims. The petitioners have sought interim directions to seal and protect visible idols, artefacts, signs, symbols and other religious features at the site.
The petitioners further asked that members of Jain and Hindu communities not be stopped from performing puja at the monument. They questioned how the ASI and the state government could permit namaz at the site every Friday if, as they contend, the structure is a Jain-Hindu temple.
The ASI’s advocate, Ankit Shah, told the court that an idol had been found on the premises but said the agency’s responsibility was to maintain and preserve the monument rather than ensure that worship proceeded smoothly. “We are not the authority to see that worship goes smoothly. The state govt has to look after it. Our duty is to maintain and preserve the monument,” he said.
Government pleader GH Virk said the state’s position was that any idol found at the site and the monument itself deserved protection. He also referred to damage to certain pillars after the video surfaced. “If an idol is found, our stand is very clear that the monument deserves protection. The idol and the monument deserve to be protected,” Virk said.
The court noted that the petitioners had invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction without first approaching the relevant authority. It nevertheless directed the ASI’s counsel to obtain instructions on the claims and material placed before the court. The case is scheduled to be taken up again on Tuesday.
