The Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict on the Kamal Maula-Bhojshala dispute has left the Muslim bodies shaken and uncertain of the way ahead. While the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has rejected the verdict, which declared the place a Saraswati temple and asked the mosque petitioners to look for a separate piece of land, the Kamal Maula Mosque Committee will challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court. The move has the blessings of the AIMPLB.

The Jamaat-e-Islami Hind is looking “at a possibility of appeal”. Its leadership feels “this case must not be viewed in isolation but as part of a broader trend wherein disputes over religious sites are being revisited, disregarding the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991”.

Around the same time, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind held a conference in collaboration with the South Asian Minorities Lawyers Association in which a report was presented on the Babri Masjid verdict and the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The report reiterated that the Places of Worship Act, 1991 holds central importance in protecting India’s secular structure, communal harmony, and constitutional stability by preventing the reopening of historical religious disputes.

Ayodhya verdict

The report presents a detailed analysis of important Supreme Court judgments, particularly the Ismail Faruqui case (1994) and the M. Siddiq (Ayodhya Verdict 2019), arguing that the interpretation in the Ismail Faruqui judgment — which stated that a mosque is not an essential part of Islam — had deep implications for subsequent cases.

“Despite Muslims responding to the Supreme Court verdict with constitutional commitment, fresh disputes concerning Gyanvapi, Mathura Eidgah, Kamal Maula Mosque, and other religious places were raised, turning the issue into a matter concerning India’s constitutional identity,” Jamiat president Mahmood Madani said.

Drawing attention to the status of Articles 25-26 of the Constitution, JIH president Sadatullah Husaini said the verdict would have “grave implications” for the “credibility of judicial system, minority rights and religious freedom” in the country.

“For decades, the Bhojshala complex functioned under an arrangement that allowed both communities to exercise their respective religious practices. The removal of established worship rights of one community in favour of another not only disrupts a long-standing arrangement but also risks undermining the principle of equal respect for all faiths,” Mr. Husaini said. “The suggestion to allot alternative land to the Muslim community in lieu of their established place of worship is also worrisome.”

He did not rule out a review petition, stating, “The judiciary must not only be impartial in its actions, but must also appear to be impartial. Unfortunately, recent developments are creating a perception to the contrary.”

In a separate press statement, AIMPLB spokesperson SQR Ilyas said the High Court judgment was delivered in disregard of historical evidence, revenue records, colonial-era official documents, gazetteers, and centuries-old Muslim religious association with the site.

“The Archaeological Survey of India’s own earlier position had acknowledged the shared religious character of the site. For decades, ASI’s official records and signboards described the site as Bhojshala / Kamal Maula Mosque, which amounted to official recognition of its disputed and shared religious status. Moreover, under the administrative arrangement of 2003, Hindus were allowed to offer puja on Tuesdays, while Muslims were permitted to offer Friday prayers. This arrangement itself was a clear acknowledgment that the ASI recognised the historical claims and worship rights of both communities. Therefore, the High Court’s decision to terminate this arrangement marks a departure from the ASI’s own earlier stand,” Mr. Ilyas said.