Context

• The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, represents a cornerstone of India's constitutional commitment to secularism and the peaceful coexistence of its diverse religious communities.
• Enacted to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, the Act reflects a legislative acknowledgment of the nation’s pluralistic ethos and its rejection of historical grievances as a basis for contemporary conflict.
• However, the Act, its enforcement, and its interpretation by the judiciary have become focal points of contention, raising questions about the fragility of secularism and the erosion of constitutional principles in modern India.

The Objectives and Mandates of the Act

• The 1991 Act enforces two fundamental principles; First, it prohibits the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship, ensuring that places maintain their status as of the day of India's independence.
• Second, it bars the initiation of new suits or legal proceedings aimed at altering this status, while abating ongoing cases related to such conversions.
• These provisions are rooted in the belief that India's independence symbolises a collective break from colonialism and its associated injustices, fostering confidence among religious communities that their places of worship will remain protected.
• As highlighted by the Supreme Court in the Ram Janmabhoomi temple case, the law binds not only individuals but also the state and its institutions.
• The Court underlined that addressing historical grievances through legal or extra-legal means risks undermining the present and future harmony of the nation.

Judicial Inconsistencies Surrounding Places of Worship Act

• Entertaining Barred Litigations
  • Despite the explicit prohibition in the Act against filing new suits or pursuing pending cases related to the religious character of places of worship, courts have repeatedly allowed such cases to proceed.
  • Examples include the ongoing legal disputes over the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura.
  • These cases, which question the historical status of these religious sites, are emblematic of a broader pattern where judicial decisions appear to deviate from the clear legislative intent of the Act.
  • This inconsistency is not merely a procedural lapse but a direct affront to the rule of law.
• Influence of Political Climates on Judicial Outcomes
  • The judiciary’s independence is one of the cornerstones of a democratic society.
  • However, in cases involving contentious religious and political issues, judicial decisions have often mirrored the prevailing political narratives.
  • For instance, the rapid pace at which some cases challenging the status of minority religious sites have been taken up contrasts sharply with the delays in addressing issues affecting the common citizen, such as those involving social justice or economic rights.
  • Critics argue that this selective urgency aligns with the majoritarian ethos propagated by certain political factions, creating an impression that the judiciary is complicit in undermining the secular character of the state.
• Judicial Overreach and Fragmentation of Precedent
  • The Supreme Court’s definitive ruling in the Ram Janmabhoomi case, which upheld the Places of Worship Act, should have served as a binding precedent for all subordinate courts.
  • However, some subsequent judgments have disregarded this precedent, fragmenting the legal interpretation of the Act and creating a lack of uniformity in its application.
  • For instance, benches presided over by former Chief Justices S.A. Bobde and D.Y. Chandrachud have been criticised for decisions that appear to weaken the protections guaranteed by the Act.
  • These judgments have inadvertently opened doors for litigants who seek to challenge the status quo of places of worship, undermining the Act’s objective to prevent historical grievances from dictating contemporary religious and social dynamics.

The Consequences of Judicial and Political Missteps

• Erosion of Public Trust in Institutions
  • One of the most immediate consequences of judicial and political missteps is the erosion of public confidence in democratic institutions.
  • The judiciary, often regarded as the ultimate arbiter of justice, is seen as partial when it entertains cases that contravene the Places of Worship Act or issues judgments perceived as aligning with majoritarian agendas.
  • This erodes its credibility as a neutral guardian of the Constitution.
  • Similarly, political actors who leverage religious disputes for electoral gains contribute to the perception that the state is complicit in fostering division.
• Deepening Communal Divides
  • Judicial and political missteps often serve as catalysts for heightened communal tensions.
  • Entertaining or advancing legal challenges to the status of places of worship emboldens extremist elements within society.
  • These disputes are frequently framed as battles for historical or cultural justice, fuelling polarisation between religious communities.
• Normalisation of Violence and Lawlessness
  • When judicial and political actions are perceived as favouring one community or ideology, they create an atmosphere where individuals and groups feel justified in taking the law into their own hands.
  • This normalisation of extrajudicial actions can lead to mob violence, as seen in instances of lynching, vandalism, and targeted attacks on religious sites or individuals.
• Undermining of Secularism and Constitutional Values
  • India’s identity as a secular democracy hinges on the equal treatment of all religions.
  • When judicial or political institutions fail to uphold the principles enshrined in the Places of Worship Act, they undermine this foundational aspect of the Constitution.
  • The Act was designed to prevent historical grievances from dictating contemporary legal and social dynamics, yet its inconsistent enforcement has allowed such grievances to resurface, threatening the secular fabric of the nation.
• Stalling Social and Economic Progress
  • Communal discord fuelled by judicial and political missteps has far-reaching implications for India’s development.
  • When societal peace is compromised, it diverts attention and resources away from critical issues like poverty alleviation, education, and infrastructure development.
  • The political capital expended on managing religious conflicts could instead be directed towards cultivating social and economic growth, benefiting all citizens irrespective of their religious or cultural identities. 

The Path Forward: Reaffirming Constitutional Values

• India's progress as a diverse and democratic nation hinge on the preservation of peace and the rule of law.
• The Places of Worship Act serves as a vital instrument in safeguarding secularism, ensuring that historical grievances do not fuel present-day conflicts.
• However, its effectiveness depends on the unwavering commitment of all branches of government; the legislature, executive, and judiciary, to uphold its provisions.
• Judicial leaders must introspect and align their decisions with the constitutional principles of equality, secularism, and justice.
• Political leadership, too, must rise above divisive rhetoric and prioritise social harmony over short-term electoral gains.
• As Ambedkar rightly noted, the majority’s responsibility lies in ensuring that minorities feel secure and integrated into the national fabric. 

Conclusion

• India stands at a crossroads where its constitutional values face unprecedented challenges.
• The judiciary’s recent deviations from the Act’s intent, coupled with political opportunism, highlights these challenges.
• It is imperative for all stakeholders to reaffirm their dedication to secularism and equality, recognising that peace, not violence, is the foundation of prosperity and only by upholding these principles can India truly fulfil the promise of We, the People.