NEW DELHI: Noting that the Madhya Pradesh HC order declaring the disputed Bhojshala complex a temple only validated the fears and concerns they had raised since the 2019 Ayodhya verdict, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUH) on Friday released a report arguing that Supreme Court’s interpretation of Places of Worship Act revealed how “deeply majoritarian politics has penetrated legal validation”.Speaking at the programme attended by senior lawyers, legal experts, former judges, researchers, and intellectuals, JUH president Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani observed that disputes did not end with the Babri Masjid issue; rather, new controversies relating to Gyanvapi, Mathura Eidgah, Kamal Maula Mosque, and other religious sites were now being raised, reopening old wounds.The report titled ‘A critical analysis of Babri Masjid judgement and the Case of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991’ provides a detailed analysis of major SC judgments claiming that certain judicial interpretations weakened constitutional principles relating to the protection of religious places.In particular, the report discusses the far-reaching implications of observations made in the Ismail Faruqui case, wherein a mosque was held not to be an essential part of Islamic practice. “As the judiciary increasingly accommodates Hindutva majoritarian-ism, Muslim sacred spaces have become legally vulnerable, culturally contested, and politically targeted,” it said.The report said Places of Worship Act was designed to freeze the religious character of worship sites as they existed on Aug 15, 1947. “Yet recent court rulings have interpreted the Act so narrowly that fresh claims against mosques in Va-ranasi, Mathura, and elsewhere are now proceeding,” it said.“The arguments deployed in those cases — concerning essential practices, belief, archaeological evidence, and civilisational memory — are now being recycled in ongoing litigation involving the Gyanvapi Mosque in Sambhal, the Shahi Eidgah at Mathura, and others,” the report stated.It further recommended that “communal politics and historical claims should not be allowed to become instruments for legal disputes”.