The AIMPLB says it would provide ‘every possible legal and moral support’ to the mosque committee’s challenge to the ruling in the Supreme Court
NEW DELHI — Rejecting the Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict declaring the Bhojshala–Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Dhar as a temple, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Saturday described the judgment as “historically flawed” and contrary to constitutional principles.
In a sharply worded statement, the board announced that the Kamal Maula Mosque Committee would challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court, adding that the AIMPLB would provide “every possible legal and moral support” in the case.
AIMPLB spokesperson Dr S Q R Ilyas said the high court verdict delivered on Friday ignored historical evidence, revenue records, archaeological material, colonial-era documents, and even the Archaeological Survey of India’s earlier position acknowledging the site’s shared religious character.
“The judgment has been delivered in disregard of historical facts, official records, gazetteers, and centuries-old Muslim religious association with the site,” Dr Ilyas said. “It is also inconsistent with the constitutional spirit and mandate of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.”
The board argued that the ASI itself had, for decades, officially described the disputed complex as “Bhojshala/Kamal Maula Mosque” in its records and signboards — an acknowledgment, it said, of the site’s disputed and shared status.
Referring to the 2003 administrative arrangement governing worship at the complex, Dr Ilyas noted that Hindus were permitted to offer prayers on Tuesdays, while Muslims were allowed to conduct Friday namaz. According to the board, this arrangement reflected ASI’s recognition of the religious claims and worship rights of both communities.
“The high court’s decision to end this arrangement marks a clear departure from ASI’s own earlier stand,” he said.
He further maintained that historical revenue records consistently identified the structure as a mosque and argued that no conclusive historical evidence existed to establish that a Saraswati temple from the era of Raja Bhoj stood at the exact location.
The board also questioned the interpretation of archaeological findings cited in the case. Dr Ilyas said that while ASI’s recent survey reportedly referred to pillars, carvings, and architectural elements associated with temple structures, many medieval Islamic buildings across the subcontinent incorporated reused material from earlier constructions.
“The mere presence of non-Islamic architectural remains cannot legally erase the centuries-old status of a mosque,” he said, adding that remnants of earlier structures cannot by themselves determine the present religious identity of a site.
The AIMPLB said the court placed excessive reliance on “civilisational narratives” linked to Raja Bhoj and Sanskrit learning while overlooking continuous religious usage, official documentation, and constitutional safeguards protecting the religious character of places of worship after Independence.
Reiterating its opposition to the verdict, the board said it would fully back the legal challenge before the Supreme Court and continue its efforts to defend the historical and constitutional rights associated with the Kamal Maula Mosque.
