NEW DELHI — The Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Tamil Nadu-based Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK) have sharply criticised the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s verdict in the Bhojshala–Kamal Maula Mosque dispute, alleging that courts are increasingly delivering judgments driven by “faith rather than evidence”, raising concerns about the future of India’s secular constitutional order.
In a strongly worded statement, CPI(M) termed the verdict “unfortunate” and said it appeared to mirror the reasoning seen in the Babri Masjid–Ram Janmabhoomi case, where faith seemed to outweigh established legal and historical principles. The party warned that the High Court’s decision to set aside the Archaeological Survey of India’s order allowing Muslims to offer prayers at the complex could have far-reaching implications for similar disputes across the country.
The party accused the judiciary of permitting historical and religious claims to override safeguards enshrined in the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which was enacted to prevent the reopening of long-settled disputes. According to CPI(M), the judgment undermines both the letter and spirit of the law and risks fuelling communal polarisation.
It further alleged that the BJP-RSS combine has consistently used religious disputes for political mobilisation while diverting attention from issues such as unemployment, inflation, and social distress. The party expressed hope that the Supreme Court would overturn the verdict during the appeals process.
Calling communalism a “grave threat” to democratic life and national unity, CPI(M) urged the judiciary to uphold constitutional morality and secularism, rather than allowing faith-based claims to determine judicial outcomes.
Echoing these concerns, MMK president and MLA M.H. Jawahirullah said the verdict had caused “deep concern and shock”, arguing that it diluted protections guaranteed under the Places of Worship Act and the Constitution’s secular framework.
Jawahirullah noted that the 1991 law was enacted to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, to safeguard communal harmony. “If historical and archaeological interpretations are selectively used to alter the character of long-standing places of worship, it could open the floodgates to endless disputes,” he warned.
He also raised concerns over what he described as a growing tendency to treat the Ayodhya judgment as a template for resolving other disputes, despite the Supreme Court itself terming that case “unique” and “exceptional”.
Criticising suggestions that alternate land could compensate for the loss of a mosque, Jawahirullah said constitutional rights and longstanding religious practices cannot be bartered away through land allotments.
Warning that such judgments could deepen social divisions and undermine communal harmony, both parties urged the Supreme Court to intervene and reaffirm the primacy of constitutional secularism and the Places of Worship Act.
