{"id":56,"date":"2025-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-07-28T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/powspa-chapter3-conflict-with-constitution\/"},"modified":"2025-08-15T04:06:14","modified_gmt":"2025-08-14T22:36:14","slug":"powspa-chapter3-conflict-with-constitution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bharatlex-rinkutai.com\/?p=56","title":{"rendered":"Conflict with Constitutional Provisions"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

3.2 Conflict with Constitutional Provisions:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secularism and Communal Harmony:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court, while deciding the Ayodhya dispute, made significant observations about the Act. It upheld the Act as a legislative measure to maintain secularism and communal harmony, emphasizing that “the Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Bhartiya Constitution.” The judgment highlighted that the Act reflects the constitutional commitment to secularism by preventing retrogression in the religious character of places of worship, which is seen as protecting a basic feature of the Constitution. However, the case was an exception due to the specific exemption for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site, showing how the Act can be overridden for particular disputes to maintain peace and address historical grievances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equality Before the Law (Article 14):<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Challenges to the Act’s Constitutionality: Several petitions have challenged the Act under Article 14, arguing that it creates an arbitrary and irrational retrospective cutoff date (August 15, 1947), thereby denying Hindus equal treatment before the law. The argument is that this Act prevents Hindus from reclaiming religious sites that were historically theirs but converted before the cutoff date, while no such restriction applies to other communities or to post-1947 conversions. The Supreme Court has yet to conclusively decide on these challenges, but the ongoing legal discourse around these petitions suggests a tension between the Act’s provisions and the constitutional guarantee of equality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Freedom of Religion (Articles 25, 26):<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights: The Act has been criticized for potentially infringing upon the rights to freedom of religion by prohibiting the conversion or restoration of places of worship to their original religious character. Critics argue that this limitation on judicial review, which is seen as a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, might violate these rights. However, judicial interpretations have generally upheld the Act, noting that it does not bar individuals from practicing their religion but rather maintains a status quo to prevent communal discord. Still, cases like those involving Gyanvapi Mosque or Krishna Janmabhoomi have allowed for inquiries into the religious character without necessarily altering the legal status, suggesting a nuanced application of these rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Places<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Know more about temple laws….<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n \n \"The\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n Bestseller #1 <\/div>\n
\n \n

\n The Power Of Your Subconscious Mind | Joseph Murphy (Tamil) <\/h3>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \u20b9142 <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \n Buy on Amazon<\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \n \"Godaan\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n Bestseller #2 <\/div>\n
\n \n

\n Godaan (Hindi) <\/h3>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \u20b9179 <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \n Buy on Amazon<\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n\n