Author : Narottam Priyadarshi
A student at Integrated law course, faculty of law, Delhi University
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (hereinafter “the Act”) is landmark legislation in India to preserve the religious character of places of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. The Act, enacted in a time of significant communal tension, aims to uphold the secular fabric of the nation by prohibiting the conversion of any place of worship and maintaining the religious status quo. However, during the last few years, it has been put to heavy tests, first in terms of application and then in constitutional validity. A spate of petitions challenging the status of various places of worship or even the validity of the Act itself has been filed before the Supreme Court. The article attempts to analyze the current challenges and implications relating to the Act.
Salient Features of the Act
Section 3: Prevents the change of any place of worship from one religious denomination to another.
Section 4(1): Ensures the religious character of a place of worship is maintained as it was on August 15, 1947.
Section 4(2): Declares all legal proceedings related to the change of religious character started after the cut-off date of August 15, 1947 stand abated.
Exception: The Act does not apply to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which is explicitly exempted under Section 5.
The general objective of the Act is to avoid religious disputes and maintain communal harmony in a pluralistic society.
Challenges Today
1. Petitions to Convert Mosques into Temples
There have been several petitions filed in courts seeking a change in the religious character of mosques by claiming that they were constructed on top of temples. Notable ones are:
Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi: The petitioners alleged that the mosque was built after the demolition of a temple of Lord Shiva.
Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura: It is claimed that it was constructed over the birthplace of Lord Krishna.
These cases are often dependent on historical and archaeological evidence. In such cases, petitioners have argued their case on the right to retrieve religious heritage. However, these claims contradict the basic provisions of the Places of Worship Act as they do not allow conversions or litigations over the issue.
2. Constitutional Complaints against the Act
The Act has been challenged on the following grounds:
Violation of Article 25 (Right to Freedom of Religion): The Petitioners have submitted that the Act infringes upon their right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion by freezing the status of places of worship.
Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality): It is submitted that the Act is arbitrary and discriminatory since it exempts the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute while imposing restrictions on others.
Historical Injustice Argument: Some argue that it perpetuates historical wrongs by preventing communities from reclaiming places of worship allegedly desecrated or destroyed in the past.
3. Political and Social Mobilization
Religious and political groups often take on these disputes to whip up public sentiment. It contributes to communal tensions and increases the threat to social order. The Gyanvapi and Mathura cases have already rejuvenated debates on historical grievance, and fear threatens further polarization.
Implications of the Challenges
1. Legal Implications
The results of the present cases and challenges to the Act will be important precedents for:
Interpretation of Secularism: The handling of these issues by the judiciary will manifest the tension between religious rights and constitutional commitment to secularism.
Limitations on Judicial Review: The parameters of judicial jurisdiction in disputes that are not permitted to be entertained under the Act will be determined.
Constitutional Morality: The litigation tests the principle of constitutional morality, which seeks to raise justice, equality, and fraternity above sectarian interests.
2. Communal Harmony
The Act was enacted to address communal tensions that often cropped up from disputes over places of worship. Weakening its provisions or entertaining claims that contravene it will lead to:
Increased communal discord.
Erosion of trust between religious communities.
Polarization of society along religious lines.
3. Political Implications
These disputes often have considerable political undertones. Electoral politics in India is deeply wedded to religious sentiments, and challenges to the Act are often used to consolidate vote banks. Such politicization undermines democratic processes and secular governance.
4. Historical Reckoning and Identity Politics
The challenges to the Act uncover deeper conflict in society related to history and identity. Those seeking redress for perceived wrongs of history stand opposite others, who, concerned that attention to such controversy overshadows urgent contemporary matters of economic development and welfare.
Judicial Perspective
The judiciary has always stressed the fact that secularism and communal harmony are essential to India’s constitutional framework. In the case of M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court of India observed that secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Likewise, in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Court underlined the separation of religion and politics as the cornerstones of secular governance.
The ongoing litigation surrounding the Places of Worship Act provides an opportunity for the judiciary to reaffirm these principles. Upholding the Act would reinforce the idea that historical grievances cannot dictate contemporary legal and constitutional norms.
Conclusion
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is a legislative commitment to securing the secular fabric of India and ensuring communal harmony but today’s challenges in these very matters, including motions of change in places of worship and constitutional challenges of the Act, test its resilience and relevancy in contemporary times. It will require a delicate balancing of respecting religious sentiments, applying the rule of law, and protecting the secular and pluralistic ethos of the nation. The role of the judiciary in reaffirming the principles enshrined in the Act will be crucial for shaping India’s journey toward becoming a democratic and harmonious society.
FAQS About the Places of Worship Act
Q1. What is the purpose of the Places of Worship Act, 1991?The Act aims to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, and prevent communal disputes arising from changes in religious status.
Q2. Does the Act apply to the Ayodhya dispute?No, the Act clearly excludes the Ayodhya dispute under Section 5, which makes it possible for the courts to dispose of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case separately.
Q3. Why is the Act being challenged in courts?The Act is being challenged as violating the fundamental rights in the sense of freedom of religion (Article 25) and equality (Article 14) and also perpetuating historical injustices.
Q4. Can legal status of a place of worship be changed under this Act?No, the Act barred the conversion of religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947.
Q5. So far, how has judiciary reacted to the challenges against the Act?The judiciary has thus far largely upheld the cause of secularism and communal harmony, though constitutional challenges are still on in the Supreme Court.
Way Forward
Strengthening Judicial Framework: The government and judicial system must ensure the tight enforcement of the Act and prevent frivolous and disorderly litigation.
Encourage Dialogue: Community leaders along with civil society organizations are to engage in dialogue where historical grievances are addressed rather than leading to conflict, in a reconciliatory manner.
Judicial Clarity: The Supreme Court would have to give a clearer judgment on the constitutional validity of the Act and the litigable scope under its own provisions.
Depoliticization of Religious Issues: Political parties must end their practice of using religious controversies for political advantage and concentrate upon the development of all sections.
