Chapter 4: Conclusion and Suggestions:
4.1 Conclusion:
From the above discussion it can be concluded that the said Act has failed to achieve its goal. As it bars judicial redressal of disputes over the nature of the place of worship it just postpones the problem of communal unrest in the country. Barring the legal procedure is not at all solution for the tensions between the communities.
The policy of maintaining status quo is having its roots in British colonial rule. Said policy was used to divide and rule by Britishers. There is no place for such cunning policies in the statute books of independent Bharat.
The Act is violative of religious and cultural rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It is against the doctrine of equality before law and equal protection of law, the spirit of natural justice.
4.2 Suggestions:
After this study following are the suggestions:
· The Act must be assessed after its enactment. If there is no applicability of this statute, then it must be repealed.
· There shall be assessment of incidences of vandalisation and alteration of places of recorded, disputed and settled after August 15, 1947.
· There must be detailed legislature for revival of religious and cultural heritage of the land.
· The cases which were dismissed due to this Act shall be reopened and shall be decided on merits.
Bibliography
Ugamsingh & Mishrimal vs. Kesrimal & Ors. [1971 SCR (2) 836]
T-A. Aiyangar Swamigal and Ors. v. L.S. Aiyangar and Ors. [(1916) 31 M.L.J. 758]
Devendra Narain Sarkar & Ors. v. Satya Charan Mukerji & Ors. [AIR 1927 CALCUTTA 783]
S. Ramnuja Jeer And Others vs Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer And Another [1961 AIR 1720]
Anandrav Bhikaji Phadke and Ors. v. Shankar Daji Charya and Ors. [(1883)ILR 7BOM323]
Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), [1986 AIR 180]
Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi (1981), [1981 AIR 746]
Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997), [AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011]
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of Bharat (1996) – Taj Trapezium Case, [1997 (2) SCC 353]
Samatha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997), [1997 (8) SCC 191]
Jeeja Ghosh vs. Union of Bharat (2016), [[2016] 4 S.C.R. 638]
M.C. Mehta v. Union of Bharat (1996) [JT 1996 (6) 129]
S.P. Gupta v. Union of Bharat (1981) [AIR 1982 SC 149]
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) [AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3297]
As it is quoted in Gulam Kadar Ahmadbhai Menon and Others vs Surat Municipal Corporation and Others [AIR 1998 Guj 234]
Clear Cut Talks, J sai deepak latest Podcast on Owaisi, Mosque on Hindu Temples, Places of Worship Act & Constitution, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_EmIOm8RqI, last visited on Dt. December 30, 2024
Lok Sabha Debate on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Bill, 1991, Dt. September 10, 1991
Rajya Sabha Debate on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Bill, 1991 Dt. September 12, 1991.
Ayodhya Judgment i.e. M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, 2019, [AIRONLINE 2019 SC 1420]
LawLex, Summary of Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 by Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Available at – https://lawlex.org/lex-pedia/summary-of-places-of-worship-special-provisions-act-1991/23611, Last visited December 7, 2024.
In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023) [2023 INSC 1058]
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [1977 AIR 1361]
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India [(2008) 6 SCC 1138]
Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India [[1994] Supp. (5) S.C.R. 1]
Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association [2000 AIR SCW 3089]
Pannalal Bansilal Patil v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1996 SCC (2) 498]
Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [2011 (8) SCC 497]
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & Ors [2012 AIR SCW 5865]
Tirthankara And Ors. vs Uoi famously known as Qutub Minar Case decided by Delhi District Court on November 29, 2021.
Satyadhyan Ghosal & Ors. vs. Deorjin Debi & Anr. [1960 AIR 941]
Daryao & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [1961 AIR 1457]
Bhagwan Das & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1532]
Sushil Kumar Sen vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [975 AIR 1185]
Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 457]
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple [AIR 2003 SC 4548]
N. Adithyan vs. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors (2016) [(2002) 8 SCC 106]
State of Punjab vs. Gurdev Singh [1991 SCR (3) 663]
Ayodhya Judgment (M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, 2019)
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
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
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
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
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
