Chapter III: Conflicts and Criticisms:
3.1 Conflict Between the Rights and the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act. 1991:
The conflict between the right to religion and the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, in Bharat centers around the balance between preserving peace and communal harmony and upholding constitutional rights to religious freedom. Let us try to know the conflict on the basis of judicial pronouncements and the Parliamentary discussions on the enactment.
Judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts:
Ayodhya Judgment (M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, 2019): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act, emphasizing its role in promoting secularism, a fundamental aspect of the Bhartiya Constitution. It was noted that the Act reflects Bharat’s commitment to the equality of all religions by freezing the religious character of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947. However, the specific case of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid was excluded from this Act due to its ongoing litigation at the time of the law’s enactment. The court highlighted that the Act was not meant to resolve historical grievances but to prevent future disputes over the religious character of places of worship.[1]
Gyanvapi Mosque Case: Various petitions have been filed challenging the status of mosques like Gyanvapi in Varanasi, where Hindu groups claim historical temples existed beneath.[2] The Supreme Court has allowed for surveys to determine the status of these places as of August 15, 1947, without altering their current character, indicating an interpretation where the Act might not bar inquiries into historical status if not aimed at conversion.
Mathura Case (Shahi Idgah Mosque): Similar to Gyanvapi, cases involving the Shahi Idgah Mosque have been contested, with the Allahabad High Court transferring these suits to itself and interpreting the Act to not bar proceedings aimed at ascertaining the religious character of such sites without intending to change it.[3]
Parliamentary Debates:
Enactment of the Act: The Act was introduced in the backdrop of the Ayodhya movement to maintain status quo regarding places of worship. The parliamentary debates from 1991 reflect a desire to prevent new disputes and to preserve social harmony. Critics, particularly from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), argued against the Act, seeing it as an appeasement to minorities and questioning Parliament’s legislative competence. However, the then government argued its necessity under the residuary powers of the Union List to uphold secularism.[4]
Debates on Constitutionality: In debates, some parliamentarians viewed the Act as necessary to heal communal rifts, while others criticized it for potentially infringing on the right to religious freedom by fixing an arbitrary date to determine the status of places of worship, thereby legitimizing historical injustices.[5]
Conflict Points:
Right to Religion vs. Preservation of Status Quo: The Act fundamentally restricts changes to the religious character of places of worship, which some argue infringes on the rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 26, and 29 of the Bhartiya Constitution, which deal with freedom of religion, management of religious affairs, and cultural rights, respectively. Critics assert that this law prevents certain communities from reclaiming what they believe to be their original places of worship.
Judicial Review and Legal Challenges: The Act has been challenged for barring judicial review, seen by some as a breach of the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes the judiciary’s role in protecting fundamental rights.[6] Even in recent years also many cases were filed to challenge the constitutionality of the said act, as it barred judicial proceedings and reviews in all cases pending before any court, except that of Ram Janma Bhumi Case.
Secularism vs. Historical Redress: While the Supreme Court has lauded the Act for promoting secularism, the ongoing legal battles reveal a tension between this secular commitment and demands for historical redress, where some groups seek to correct what they perceive as historical wrongs. It is also debated that, how the secular nature of the State is biased towards minority communities for sake of their votes in the influence of appeasement politics.
The narrative around this Act continues to evolve through legal challenges and political discourse, presenting a complex interplay of legal, cultural, and historical considerations in Bharat’s approach to secularism and religious freedom. In further sections you will find this conflict in detail. Let first dive into history of the law governing places of worship.
Post-Act Developments:
Legal Challenges: Several legal challenges have been mounted against the Act, arguing it violates fundamental rights and the principle of secularism by not allowing for historical redress.
Judicial Interpretations: Courts have generally upheld the Act’s intent but have also navigated around it in specific cases, allowing for historical inquiries without necessarily altering the status quo. The Supreme Court’s handling of the Ayodhya case, culminating in the 2019 verdict, was a significant moment, showing how historical claims could be addressed under exceptional circumstances.
Cultural and Political Discourse: The Act continues to be a focal point in discussions about secularism, justice, and cultural nationalism in Bharat. Debates often revolve around whether the Act truly serves secularism by preventing communal strife or if it perpetuates historical injustices against Hindus.
But instead of putting a fruitful end on such conflicts, the Act barred any kind of judicial review of such disputes. Somewhere by doing this the legislature tried to run away from conflict of rights of different groups.
Public and Political Reaction: The Act was controversial from the start. While it was intended to promote secularism and peace, it was perceived by many Hindus as a legal endorsement of past injustices, especially given the exemption for the Ayodhya dispute. Hindu nationalist groups and others argued it denied Hindus the right to reclaim their religious heritage.
References:
[1] Ayodhya Judgment (M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, 2019)
[2] Live Law, Sambhal Case Reminder That Courts Must Enforce Places Of Worship Act In Letter & Spirit To Preserve Social Fabric by Manu Sebastian Dt. 27 Nov 2024 11:10 AM, available at https://www.livelaw.in/articles/sambhal-case-reminder-that-courts-must-enforce-places-of-worship-act-in-letter-spirit-to-preserve-social-fabric-276439, last visited on December 3, 2024
[3] Vajiram and Ravi Institute of IAS Exams, Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, Available at https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-daily-current-affairs/mains-articles/places-of-worship-act/, last visited on December 3, 2024
[4] The Hindu, What does the Places of Worship Act protect? By K. Venkatraman, Available at https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/what-does-the-places-of-worship-act-protect/article61615043.ece Last visited on December 4, 2024
[5] Bar and Bench, Is The Places of Worship Act, 1991 constitutional?, Available at https://www.barandbench.com/columns/is-the-places-of-worship-special-provisions-act-1991-constitutional, Last visited December 4, 2024
[6] Live Law, Supreme Court Issues Notice On Subramanian Swamy’s Plea Challenging Provisions Of Places of Worship Act LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 26 Mar 2021 11:53 AM, Available at – https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/subramanian-swamy-places-of-worship-act-supreme-court-171767, Last visited December 4, 2024
Add this website to your bookmarks to know more about these laws in simple language so that you can understand the provisions, their purpose, impact of implementation, failure to protect culture and much more. Share if you found it important for battle of cultural preservation
