Nushrratt Bharuccha visited the Mahakal Temple on Tuesday and attended the early morning Bhasma Aarti. During the visit, she offered water to the deity, accepted prasad and interacted with temple authorities, who later felicitated her. The actor described the experience as peaceful and positive, and said she wished to visit the shrine again.

Soon after her visit, All India Muslim Jamaat president Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi Barelvi criticised the actor’s actions. In a statement, Razvi said that participating in temple rituals was against Islamic principles and termed her conduct “un-Islamic.” He claimed that, under Sharia, such actions amounted to a religious violation and said she should repent. The remarks drew immediate attention and sharp reactions.

Nushrratt, who belongs to the Dawoodi Bohra community, has not issued any response to the cleric’s comments. She has, however, earlier spoken positively about her visit to the temple and praised the arrangements made for devotees.

The cleric’s statement drew strong criticism from several Hindu saints and religious leaders in Ujjain, who described his remarks as unnecessary and provocative. Mahant Vishal Das said faith was a personal matter and questioned why anyone should object if an individual chose to visit a place of worship. He termed the actor’s visit an example of India’s composite culture and urged religious leaders to refrain from issuing moral judgments on personal belief.

Mahant Satyanand of the Shri Panchayati Akhada Bada Udasin echoed similar views, stating that India’s strength lay in its pluralism and mutual respect among faiths. He said visits by public figures to religious sites should not be politicised or communalised, and cautioned against turning personal spiritual choices into public disputes.

Temple officials confirmed that this was Nushrratt Bharuccha’s second visit to the Mahakal Temple and said she followed all prescribed customs during the darshan. They declined to comment on the controversy, stating that the temple welcomes devotees from all backgrounds.

The episode has once again highlighted tensions that arise when public figures cross perceived religious lines, particularly in an era of heightened sensitivity around identity and belief. Observers note that while clerical opinions may vary, constitutional guarantees allow individuals to practice faith freely.

As of now, authorities have not intervened, and the matter remains a subject of public debate rather than legal scrutiny.