Places of Worship Act: The Supreme Court today (December 12) asked the Centre to file an affidavit in a batch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991, that prohibit the filing of a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947. SC said that no further suits can be registered in the country till it hears and disposes of the petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act. The apex court also asked the Centre to file an affidavit within four weeks on pleas challenging the act.
A special bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan heard the case on Thursday. The pleas challenged the Places of Worship Act, saying that the act takes away the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to restore their places of worship and pilgrimages, destroyed by invaders.
When was the Places of Worship Act introduced?
The Places of Worship Act was introduced in 1991 during the Congress government when PV Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister, and the Ram Temple-Babri Masjid dispute matter was at its peak. This law was passed in response to growing temple-mosque disputes across the country, which were creating a tense environment. The law stipulates that religious structures in India should remain as they were in 1947, and no one can alter their original form or make claims over them. Any petition seeking to alter or remove such a religious site will be dismissed. Violating this rule could lead to a fine or imprisonment for up to three years.
Why was the act not applied in the Ram Temple-Babri Masjid dispute matter?
When this law was enacted, the Ram Temple-Babri Masjid dispute was at its peak. As a result, the Parliament decided that the act would not apply in the Ayodhya case. This allowed for prolonged hearings in the matter, ultimately leading to a ruling in favour of the temple, and the Ram Mandir is now under construction. However, the law will apply if any claims are made to alter the original structure of other religious sites and protect their integrity. This is why there is a demand for the repeal of the law, as it would allow all parties to claim their rights over places connected to their religious sentiments, even if they are currently sites of worship for another community.
Who has filed pleas in the Supreme Court?
Daughter of the Kashi Royal Family, Maharaja Kumari Krishna Priya; BJP leader Subramanian Swamy; Chintamani Malviya, former Member of Parliament; Anil Kabotra, a retired army officer; advocates Chandra Shekhar and Rudra Vikram Singh, residents of Varanasi; Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati, a religious leader; Devkinandan Thakur, resident of Mathura and a religious guru; and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, among others, have filed the pleas in the apex court against the 1991 Act.Subramanian Swamy wanted the apex court to read down certain provisions to enable Hindus to stake claim over the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, while Ashwini Upadhyay claimed the entire statute was unconstitutional and no question of reading down arises. The doctrine of reading down a law is generally used to save a statute from being struck down entirely, subject to adjudication over its constitutionality.
The petitioners claim that the act violates the principles of secularism and the rule of law and that it takes away their right to approach the court and seek judicial remedy. They also argue that the Act deprives them of their right to manage, maintain, and administer their places of worship and pilgrimage.
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind had also filed a plea in the top court challenging the petitions filed by Hindu petitioners, saying that entertaining the pleas against the Act will open floodgates of litigations against countless mosques across India. Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind had cited the five-judge Constitution bench judgement in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title case, noting the reference to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, to argue that the law cannot be set aside now.
The Indian Muslim Personal Law Board had also moved the apex court opposing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of certain provisions of a 1991 law. The Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, which manages the mosque in the Gyanvapi complex, has filed an intervention application in the case and sought dismissal of pleas challenging the Places of Worship Act.
One of the pleas challenging the Act stated, "The Act excludes the birthplace of Lord Rama but includes the birthplace of Lord Krishna, though both are the incarnation of Lord Vishnu, the creator, and equally worshipped all over the world."
Petitions challenged constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, 4 of Places of Worship Act
The pleas further stated that the Act blatantly offends the right of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to restore, manage, maintain, and administer the places of worship and pilgrimage guaranteed under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions filed have challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, which it said violates the principles of secularism and the rule of law, which are integral parts of the Preamble and the basic structure of the Constitution. The pleas said that the Act has taken away the right to approach the Court, and thus the right to judicial remedy has been closed.
Section 3 of the Act bars the conversion of places of worship. It states, "No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof."
Section 4 bars the filing of any suit or initiating any other legal proceeding for a conversion of the religious character of any place of worship, as existing on August 15, 1947. The Places of Worship Act 1991 is void and unconstitutional for many reasons, the plea said, adding that it offends the right of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to pray, profess, practice, and prorogate religion (Article 25), petitions said. It also infringes on their right to manage, maintain, and administer the places of worship and pilgrimage (Article 26), pleas added.
The act deprives these communities from owning or acquiring religious properties belonging to the deity (misappropriated by other communities) and also takes away the right to take back their places of worship and pilgrimage and the property which belongs to the deity, stated the pleas. The Act further deprives Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs of taking back their places of worship and pilgrimage connected with cultural heritage (Article 29), and it also restricts them from restoring the possession of places of worship and pilgrimage but allows Muslims to claim under Section 107 of the Waqf Act, the pleas added.
"It is respectfully submitted that the Central Government by making impugned provision (Places of Worship Act 1991) in the year of 1991 has created arbitrary irrational retrospective cutoff date, declared that character of places of worship and pilgrimage shall be maintained as it was on August 15, 1947 and no suit or proceeding shall lie in the court in respect of the dispute against encroachment done by barbaric fundamentalist invaders and such proceeding shall stand abated," the PILs stated.
Why is there a demand for the repeal of the Places of Worship Act?
The act states that religious sites should remain as they were in 1947, and no claims can be made to change their structure. This has become a point of attention in places like the Gyanvapi mosque, the Sambhal mosque, and other sites, where disputes are ongoing. The Hindu side argues that mosques were built after destroying temples and that Hindus should be allowed to worship at these sites. They suggest that other disputed mosques, like the Babri Masjid, should be investigated, and if it is confirmed that they were temples, a temple should be built in their place. However, under the Places of Worship Act, the original structure of any religious site cannot be altered. As a result, many ongoing disputes cannot be heard in court, leading to calls for the repeal of the Act to allow petitions on temple-mosque disputes to proceed.
What are the arguments from both sides?
Ashwini Upadhyay has filed a petition seeking the repeal of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Upadhyay argues that Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act take away the judicial right of individuals or religious groups to reclaim a worship place. He claims the entire law is unconstitutional and cannot be reinterpreted. The Marxist Communist Party and Maharashtra MLA Jitendra Awhad have also filed petitions against several pending petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. They argue that this law protects the country’s public order, unity, fraternity, and secularism. In most cases, the Muslim side has cited the 1991 law, stating that such lawsuits are not acceptable. Petitions, including one by former Rajya Sabha member Subramanian Swamy, challenge the provisions of the act.
