The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is a crucial piece of legislation in India’s attempt to preserve the secular fabric of the nation
Published Dec 07, 2024 | 9:13 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 07, 2024 | 9:13 PM
Supreme Court (iStock)
The Supreme Court of India has constituted a special bench to hear a batch of public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
The provisions in question prohibit the filing of lawsuits to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what it was on 15 August 1947, the day India gained independence.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, is scheduled to hear the matter on 12 December.
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, was enacted by the Government of India to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they stood on 15 August 1947 — the day India gained independence.
The law was introduced to address contentious religious disputes, particularly those involving the conversion of religious sites, and to prevent further communal unrest.
Key provisions of the Act:
Status quo on religious character:
The Act mandates that the religious character of a place of worship, as it existed on 15 August 1947, must remain unchanged. This means that no religious site can be altered or converted to a different religion. For example, a Hindu temple cannot be turned into a mosque, or vice versa, based on post-independence disputes.
Bar on new legal disputes:
The law also prohibits the filing of new lawsuits seeking to alter the religious character of any place of worship. It effectively freezes the status of places of worship as they were in 1947, barring any legal challenge aimed at changing this.
Penalties for violations:
The Act imposes penalties, including imprisonment, for individuals or groups who attempt to alter the religious character of a site in violation of the law.
Exception for Babri Masjid:
Notably, the Act does not apply to the Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya. The law allows for the continuation of the Ayodhya case, which eventually led to the Supreme Court ruling in favour of the construction of the Ram Mandir on the disputed site in 2019.
The Places of Worship Act was introduced to address escalating religious tensions, particularly over contested sites that have historical and political significance.
One of the most prominent and contentious issues was the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, which had been at the center of a decades-long dispute between Hindus and Muslims. The demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 triggered widespread violence, and the Act was part of the government’s effort to prevent further religious strife.
The law was aimed at ensuring religious harmony by freezing the status of all places of worship, so that no further attempts to alter their religious nature would be legally entertained.
The petition now before the Supreme Court seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, arguing that it violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, particularly the right to freedom of religion and access to justice.
Critics of the law contend that it infringes upon the right of communities to seek justice for perceived historical wrongs, especially in cases where religious structures were controversially altered in the past.
Key points of the petitioners’ argument:
Violation of religious rights:
The petitioners argue that the Act infringes on the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution, by preventing legal challenges to the status of religious places.
Denial of legal remedies:
Another central issue is that the Act effectively bars individuals or communities from seeking legal remedies in cases where the religious character of a place of worship has been altered in the past. This has raised concerns about justice for religious communities whose places of worship were allegedly converted or destroyed.
Conflict with constitutional principles:
Some argue that the Act contradicts the principles of equality and justice as enshrined in the Constitution. They contend that historical wrongs, including the conversion of religious places, should not be immune to legal scrutiny and redress.
The petitions challenge sections 2, 3, and 4 of the 1991 Act, which prevent legal action aimed at changing the religious character of any place of worship.
The petitioner, Ashwini Upadhyay, argues that these provisions violate the constitutional right to access judicial remedy, particularly in cases where religious groups seek to reclaim or alter the character of places of worship that they believe were constructed by demolishing temples or other places of worship.
Among the contentious sites at the heart of these legal challenges are the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, and the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal.
In these cases, petitioners have claimed that these mosques were built after the destruction of ancient Hindu temples and have sought permission to offer Hindu prayers at these sites.
The Muslim parties in these cases, including the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, have relied on the Places of Worship Act to argue that the suits are not maintainable. The law, they argue, clearly prohibits any attempt to change the religious character of these places of worship, which have existed in their current form since 15 August 1947.
On the other hand, Hindu petitioners—including former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy and Ashwini Upadhyay—argue that the law’s provisions are unconstitutional.
Swamy has petitioned the court to “read down” certain provisions of the Act, allowing Hindus to make claims over the disputed sites, such as the Gyanvapi Mosque and Shahi Idgah Mosque.
The doctrine of reading down is typically used to adjust a law to align with constitutional principles, thus saving it from being struck down.
However, Upadhyay has argued that the entire statute is unconstitutional and no question of “reading down” arises, calling the law “arbitrary” and “irrational.”
(Compiled by Ananya Rao)
