All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) President Asaduddin Owaisi on Friday, 15 May declared that the Madhya Pradesh High Court order declaring the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula mosque complex a temple is structurally identical to the Supreme Court's judgement in the Babri Masjid case — both, he argued, rest on 'aastha' (belief) rather than legal title. Speaking at a press conference in Hyderabad, the Hyderabad Member of Parliament called the High Court ruling 'erroneous' and said it ignored foundational documentary evidence.

The Parallel Owaisi Draws

Owaisi argued that the two rulings share a common flaw: courts deciding on religious character of disputed sites on the basis of faith rather than established possession or legal record. He noted a key distinction, however — in the Babri Masjid case, the court had held that Muslims were not in possession, whereas in the Bhojshala dispute, the Muslim community had been in continuous possession until the High Court order. 'Muslims had been offering namaz there for 700 years,' he said. 'It is a Waqf by dedication. The erstwhile state of Dhar had given it to Muslims.'

Documentary Evidence the Court Allegedly Overlooked

The AIMIM chief cited a chain of official records he contends the High Court disregarded. The 1935 Dhar State Gazette and Dhar durbar proceedings, he said, explicitly acknowledged that namaz was being offered at the site and that the state had relinquished guardianship, transferring the property to the Muslim community. In 1951, the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) issued orders that only Muslims would offer namaz there and that rituals of no other religion would be permitted. A formal Waqf gazette notification followed in 1985 under the Waqf Act, 1954. 'The ASI in 1951 and 1952 clarified this is a mosque and rejected applications by those who wanted to celebrate 'Bhuj Utsav',' Owaisi said.

The Gurukul Argument

Addressing claims that the site was originally a temple, Owaisi contended that inscriptions found at the location indicate it functioned as a gurukul — a centre for Sanskrit learning promoted by Raja Bhoj — rather than a place of Hindu worship. 'Just as we call Parliament a temple of democracy, it does not mean it is a place of worship. Similarly, it was a gurukul. There was an earthquake in 1220 and it was reconstructed,' he said. He also noted that in 1995, certain influential Muslims in Dhar entered into an agreement permitting puja inside the mosque every Tuesday and on Basant Panchami — a decision he described as a mistake made by that community at the time.

Legal Challenge: Places of Worship Act, 1991

Owaisi argued that the High Court order directly violates the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. He cited Section 4 of the Act, which bars any change to the religious character of a place of worship as it stood on 15 August 1947. He also invoked the ASI Act, which he said prohibits altering the nature and character of any protected religious site. 'This judgment is not in accordance with Constitutional values,' he said. 'Even in the Babri Masjid case, the court judgment favoured one religion while ending the right of worship of another. Such judgments have opened the floodgates, and now anyone can challenge the places of worship, weakening the significance of the Places of Worship Act.'

Political Allegation and Next Steps

The AIMIM chief alleged that the Narendra Modi government and the ASI are 'hand-in-hand with the petitioners' — a charge he said amounts to a violation of Articles 14 and 12 of the Constitution. He expressed hope that the Supreme Court would take into account the 1935 Dhar State Gazette, the 1985 Waqf registration, and the Places of Worship Act while hearing any appeal. Owaisi recalled that after the Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir verdict, he had predicted that a faith-based ruling would open the door to multiple similar disputes — a warning he argued has now come to pass.