New Delhi, July 15 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stay the Madhya Pradesh high court's judgment declaring the disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar a temple of Goddess Saraswati and declined to restore Friday namaz at the site, even as it directed authorities to provide a nearby space for Muslims to offer prayers as an interim arrangement. A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana ,said that the state administration and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) may earmark a separate open space "adjacent or near to" the disputed complex where members of the Muslim community can offer Friday namaz between 1 pm and 3 pm. The court also restrained the ASI from carrying out any structural alteration at the site without its permission. "We are inclined to adjudicate the issue of maintainability... let us not pass any order which can lead to issues of law and order or disturb harmony," the bench observed, adding that it would prefer to hear the main appeals rather than pass an interim order restoring the earlier arrangement. The bench said it was conscious that the high court judgment had already been partly implemented. "In this situation, we have to protect the rights under the judgment of the high court until it is set aside on appeal. Without prejudice to either side, let the namaz be offered at an adjacent site next to the declared temple," it said. The court was hearing appeals filed by petitioner Jebran Ansari, Quazi Moinuddin, the mutawalli (caretaker) of the Kamal Maula mosque, and the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, challenging the high court's declaration that the 11th-century Bhojshala-Kamal Maula complex is a Hindu temple and its decision to quash the ASI's 2003 order permitting Muslims to offer Friday prayers at the site. Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for Ansari, argued that the high court had decided disputed questions of fact in writ proceedings without a trial or cross-examination of ASI experts. He said Muslims had been offering prayers at the site for decades under the 2003 arrangement and sought restoration of the earlier position pending the Supreme Court's decision. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Moinuddin, urged the court to preserve the existing balance, cautioning that reopening historical disputes could have wider consequences. Referring to the Constitution, he said fraternity and secularism were values that must guide judicial intervention in such sensitive disputes. Opposing interim relief, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh government, argued that the challenge had been filed nearly two months after the high court judgment and that restoring the previous arrangement would create administrative difficulties after the new arrangement had already been implemented. The bench repeatedly stressed the sensitivity of the dispute. "What is being said in courtroom number one can have repercussions," observed CJI Kant, urging all sides to exercise restraint. The high court held that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, did not apply to the Bhojshala complex as it is a protected monument governed by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The Supreme Court is now expected to examine, among other issues, whether the high court could determine the religious character of the site in writ proceedings and whether such an exercise is barred by the 1991 law. Reacting to Friday's order, Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain told a news agency, "...The Congress party believes that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, should be implemented strictly."...