The Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict that rejected the Muslim side’s argument over its right to prayer at the disputed ASI-protected site by declaring Bhojshala a temple and not the Kamal Maula Mosque was, however, excoriated for allegedly being “biased” on grounds of the court’s failure to safeguard the Constitution, the Places of Worship Act and historical evidence by the AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, who also termed it erroneous.
The lawmaker asserted that the bench completely disregarded foundational records, and he vehemently argued that both the 1935 Dhar State Gazette and the 1985 Waqf registration documents were inexplicably overlooked.
Drawing an incendiary parallel with the Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir verdict, Owaisi warned that the ruling could unleash a chain of sectarian disputes over contested religious structures across the country, while contending that the judgment entrenched a majoritarian interpretation of faith and history at the expense of constitutional secularism.
This contentious judicial pronouncement has effectively dissolved the delicate 2003 Archaeological Survey of India arrangement, which had hitherto permitted Hindus to worship on Tuesdays and Muslims to offer prayers on Fridays; consequently, the court has stripped both communities of their shared access and re-allocated exclusive dominion.
The division bench comprising Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi had declared that the disputed Bhojshala complex was a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati and observed that evidence pointed towards the existence of a Sanskrit teaching centre and a Saraswati shrine at the site.
Simultaneously, the bench suggested that the Muslim community could seek separate land from the state government in Dhar district for the construction of a mosque if an application was moved by the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society.
While the Hindu petitioners pointed to ancient coins, structural pillars, and Parmar dynasty inscriptions as irrefragable proof of a primordial Sanskrit learning centre, the Muslim litigants resolutely denounced the findings as an engineered artifice designed specifically to buttress majoritarian claims.
The dispute over the ASI-protected structure has for decades remained a combustible flashpoint, with Hindus claiming the complex as an ancient Saraswati temple, Muslims identifying it as the Kamal Maula Mosque, and a Jain petitioner contending that the site originally functioned as a medieval Jain temple and gurukul.