2.2 Enactment of the Act:
The Places of Worship Act was enacted to put an end to legal disputes over the religious character of places of worship, aiming to maintain communal harmony by preserving the status quo as of August 15, 1947. The underlying idea was to prevent future conflicts by freezing historical disputes. Let us find out various aspects of Parliamentary proceeding and debates on the said Act before interpreting it.
2.2.1 Lok Sabha on September 11, 1991:
Following points were discussed in Lok Sabha when the bill titled as “The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Bill” was produced before the house.[1]
1. Preservation of Communal Harmony: The primary merit highlighted was to maintain communal harmony by preventing disputes over the religious character of places of worship. The debate emphasized that without this legislation, historical grievances could reignite, leading to communal discord.
2. Freezing the Status Quo: There was a consensus on the necessity to freeze the religious character of places of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. This was seen as a way to stop ongoing and potential future litigations over conversion or claims of religious sites, thus maintaining peace. The primary intent was to maintain the religious character of places of worship as it was on August 15, 1947. Members debated the importance of this for national unity and communal harmony, arguing that reopening historical claims could lead to unrest. There was a consensus on the need to prevent conversions of religious sites to maintain peace. Opposition criticized this.
3. Avoiding Legal Entanglements: The legislation was deemed necessary to avoid a flood of legal cases that could challenge the religious identity of places of worship. Members discussed how such legal battles could drain judicial resources and exacerbate communal tensions. Discussion centered around the barring of legal proceedings related to conversion post-independence. Some members expressed concern over the implications for ongoing disputes, like the Ayodhya issue, questioning if this would truly resolve or just postpone conflicts. However, supporters argued that it would provide a legal finality, preventing endless litigation.
4. Historical Disputes and National Integration: The debate touched upon the need to address historical disputes in a manner that promotes national integration rather than division. The Act was proposed as a solution to prevent the rekindling of old conflicts, especially in light of events like the Ayodhya dispute.
5. Secularism and Constitutional Values: The legislation was seen as supporting Bharat’s secular fabric by ensuring equal respect for all religions and preventing changes that could be perceived as favoring one religious group over another. This was argued to align with the constitutional principles of secularism. But at this point the Bill was criticized for violation of religious and cultural rights.
6. Legal Clarity and Stability: By providing clear legal provisions, the Act would offer stability in how religious matters are handled legally, reducing ambiguity and the scope for misuse of legal processes for communal gains. Discussions focused on how this section ensures that the legal framework established by the ordinance would not be undone, thereby providing stability in legal proceedings and administrative measures concerning places of worship. The Act would override other laws was debated for its implications on existing legal rights and frameworks. Some members expressed concern over potential conflicts with personal laws or other statutes.
7. Preventing Conversion of Religious Places: There was a strong argument for the need to legislate against the conversion of religious places from one denomination to another post-independence, which could lead to unrest. This was to ensure that no religious community felt threatened or marginalized by such actions. The introduction of penalties was discussed as a necessary deterrent against any attempts to alter the religious character of places of worship post-independence. Members debated the severity of the punishment, with some arguing that a three-year imprisonment term showed the government’s commitment to maintaining communal harmony. Others felt it might be too stringent for what could be seen as civil disputes. There was discussion on how these penalties would balance with existing civil remedies or other legal actions one might take. The Act was positioned as a supplement rather than a replacement for other legal recourse, ensuring that criminal penalties would only apply in clear violations of Section 3.
8. Immediate Action through an Ordinance: The urgency of the situation was highlighted by the fact that an ordinance had already been promulgated, and the Bill was necessary to give this temporary measure permanent legal backing, reflecting the immediate need felt by the government to act. The ordinance was introduced as an immediate measure to address communal tensions, especially in light of events like the Ayodhya dispute. The transition from ordinance to Act was debated as a formal step to give the law permanence and legitimacy through parliamentary approval. Members discussed how this move from an ordinance to an Act underscores the government’s commitment to using the legislative process for long-term solutions. The provision ensuring that actions taken under the ordinance are recognized under the Act was seen as essential for continuity and legal clarity. There was a consensus that this would prevent any disruption in the legal processes or administrative actions that had already been taken under the ordinance.
9. Protecting Minority Rights: Some members mentioned the need to protect minority communities’ places of worship, preventing majoritarian claims or actions that could alter these sites’ religious character. This is the main point of criticism of the said Act under the heading of appeasement politics done by the political parties.
10. A Long-term Solution: The legislation was seen not just as an immediate response but as a long-term solution to communal issues related to places of worship, aiming to prevent future conflicts by setting a clear legal precedent. But as per critics it created long term confusion in majority population, that the government is considering rights of minority classes only.
11. Conversion: The term “conversion” was debated extensively. The idea was to prevent changes in the religious character of places of worship post-independence. Members highlighted that this definition would ensure that the religious identity of buildings as of August 15, 1947, remains unchanged, thereby preventing legal challenges or claims based on historical disputes over conversion.
12. Place of Worship: The broad definition of “place of worship” was intended to cover all forms of religious structures across different faiths, ensuring inclusivity and protection for all religious communities. The discussions underscored the necessity of this inclusive approach to foster communal harmony.
13. Religious Denomination: This term was debated with an emphasis on recognizing the diversity within religions, acknowledging sects and sub-sects, which could be important in legal contexts where disputes might arise over the control or religious character of a place of worship.
14. Abatement of Proceedings: The provision to abate current legal proceedings was debated for its potential to affect justice in ongoing cases. The government clarified that this was necessary to avoid further communal discord, but it was acknowledged that this would lead to the dismissal of cases not aligned with the Act’s intent.
15. Archaeological Sites: The exemption for places under the Archaeological Sites and Remains Act was debated as a necessary clause to respect the existing legal framework for historical preservation. Members discussed how this would allow for the maintenance and study of such sites without the constraints of the new Act, focusing on the cultural and historical significance over contemporary religious disputes.
16. Pending Legal Actions: The exception for cases already instituted before the Act’s commencement was seen as a measure of fairness. It was argued that abruptly stopping cases already in the legal system could be unjust. This point was raised to ensure that those who had already engaged in legal proceedings would not be left without recourse. The retroactive application of the Act to all pending proceedings was a significant point of discussion. Members debated how this would affect cases already in the legal system, particularly those related to religious disputes. The government argued that this was necessary to ensure uniformity and to prevent further communal discord by stopping litigation that could challenge the status quo of religious places as of August 15, 1947.
17. Ancient Monuments: The inclusion of ancient monuments under this Act was debated with an emphasis on balancing historical preservation with religious sentiments. The idea was to prevent the Act from impeding on the roles of archaeological and historical preservation bodies.
18. Settled Disputes: The exemption for disputes settled before the Act’s commencement was discussed to avoid reopening closed cases, which could further complicate communal relations.
19. Complaint Mechanism: The requirement that only the government or an authorized authority could initiate legal action was debated for its implications on individual rights to seek justice. The government argued this was to prevent frivolous litigation and ensure that only significant violations would be prosecuted, keeping communal peace in mind.
20. Rule-Making Authority: The provision for the Central Government to make rules was discussed as a practical necessity for implementing the Act. Members debated the scope of these rules, emphasizing that they should be specific to the Act’s objectives without overreaching into areas not covered by the legislation.
21. Parliamentary Oversight: The requirement for rules to be laid before both Houses of Parliament was seen as a check to ensure that the executive’s rule-making power is subject to legislative scrutiny. This was debated as a safeguard against potential misuse or arbitrary rule-making by the government.
22. Flexibility and Adaptability: Some members highlighted the importance of this section in allowing the Act to adapt to unforeseen circumstances or to clarify ambiguities in its application. The government assured that any rules would be made with the intent of enhancing the Act’s effectiveness in maintaining communal harmony.
After this discussion, the members of Lok Sabha passed the said Bill with majority. And the same was introduced in Rajya Sabha on next day. Although opposition criticized each and every provision of this Bill and tried to emphasize that the enactment will be violative of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Bharat.
Reference:
[1] Lok Sabha Debate on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Bill, 1991, Dt. September 10, 1991
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
Know more about laws related to temples…
Very nice
Pingback: Rajyasabha Debate on Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 – bharatlex-rinkutai.com