Why in News?

The Supreme Court is deliberating a critical case concerning the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, a statute that preserves the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947.

Despite its significance, the case has seen minimal progress in recent years, with the Union government maintaining a non-committal stance.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
• Legal Challenges w.r.t. the Places of Worship Act, 1991
• Concerns Raised by Muslim Representatives and Judicial Response
• Conclusion

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991:

• Background: The Act was brought in by the P V Narasimha Rao-led Congress government during the height of the Ram temple movement.
• Key provision: It mandates that the nature of all places of worship, except the one in Ayodhya that was then under litigation, shall be maintained as it was on August 15, 1947.
• Objective: The Act prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship (as it existed on 15th August, 1947).
• Scope: It restricts individuals from filing suits aimed at reclaiming religious sites.
• SC verdict: In the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case (2019), it had underlined that the Act is “a legislative intervention which preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values”.

Legal Challenges wrt the Places of Worship Act, 1991:

• Petitioners’ argument: The Act unfairly denies Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs the right to reclaim places of worship allegedly taken over during historical invasions.
  • They deem the Act an impediment to seeking justice for historical wrongs.
• Counter argument:
  • The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board defends the Act, asserting that it upholds secularism and fraternity - values enshrined in the Constitution’s Basic Structure.
  • Muslim parties highlight the SC’s 2019 observation that the Act safeguards national harmony by preventing the misuse of history to oppress the present and future generations.
• SC proceedings: The apex court has yet to resolve the four-year-old case. The last significant order, dated November 30, 2023, noted the Union government’s lack of response on the issue.
• Contrasting actions by the courts:
  • Ajmer Sharif Dargah case: Rajasthan courts issued notices to the Minority Affairs Ministry and Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) over claims that the dargah was built over a Shiva temple.
  • Shahi Jama Masjid, Sambhal: A local court in Uttar Pradesh ordered a survey after claims it was constructed by Emperor Babar on a demolished temple.
  • Gyanvapi Mosque: The SC permitted the continuation of a scientific survey, excluding excavation, after claims of discovering a "shivling" on the premises.
  • Shahi Eidgah case: The apex court stayed a High Court order permitting a survey at Mathura’s Eidgah mosque.

Concerns Raised by Muslim Representatives and Judicial Response:

• Survey modus operandi: Many experts described ongoing surveys as part of a systematic strategy to challenge the integrity of religious sites one claim at a time.
• Calls for action: Muslim parties, including the Gyanvapi mosque management, have urged the court to enforce the Act to halt frivolous claims.
• Judicial response: The then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud emphasised the importance of balancing faith and legality, remarking that what may appear frivolous to some could represent genuine faith to others.

Conclusion:

• The Places of Worship Act case reflects a broader conflict between historical grievances and constitutional values of secularism and unity.
• While the SC deliberates, contrasting judicial interventions at local levels continue to fuel debates on religious and cultural identity in India.
• A resolution on this matter remains crucial to maintaining communal harmony and reinforcing the rule of law.