I got a ringside view of making a lot of laws. I asked the law ministry drafters to always keep the bill short, crisp and clear.
- There was one such law Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. In my opinion, it is short – only 8 sections. It was crisp – it had one purpose and that was to freeze the character of the place of worship that existed at the dawn of independence. It was clear – no ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’ or ‘no’s’ or ‘without prejudice’.
I request everyone to read Section 3 and Section 4(1) of the said Act, which read as follows:
- Bar of conversion of places of worship: No person shall convert the place of worship of any religious sect or any part thereof into a place of worship of the same religious sect or a different religious sect or any sect.
- Declaration as to religious character of certain places of worship and bar to jurisdiction of courts, etc. – (1) It is declared that the religious character of the existing religious place on 15th August 1947 will remain as it was on that day.
The only exception was the place of worship known as the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya because of the ongoing controversy.
There was widespread acceptance of the intent, purpose, spirit and scope of the Act. In my opinion, the Act achieved its objective as there was peace and tranquility in the matter of places of worship for about 30 years. On the whole, the people accepted that temples would remain temples, mosques would remain mosques, churches would remain congregations, gurudwaras would remain gurdwaras, synagogues would remain synagogues and all other places of worship. Retain the same character as occupied on August 15, 1947.
benign neglect
Unfortunately, there is no valuable information about the working of the Act. Questions to PRISM (the Parliamentary Research Facility) revealed that the government of the day has given three soft answers about arrests and charges under the Act. The best that can be said about the functioning of the Act is that one government after another seems to have ignored the Act.
Enter the courts. A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India on October 28, 2020. Prayers are directive: Declare that Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 are invalid and unconstitutional in so far as they seek to certify ‘places of worship’ illegally constructed by barbarian invaders. Note that sections 3 and 4 form the core of the Act. In the absence of Sections 3 and 4 there is nothing in the Act. These provisions have been challenged in the Supreme Court on the ground that they violate Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26 and 29 of the Constitution of India. Note also that these ‘places of worship’, according to the petitioner, were illegally constructed by barbarian invaders. In the paragraphs leading to the three prayers, the petitioner did not hide the cause and the target community. He wanted to restore the religious sites of ‘Hindu, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh’ through legal process. The writ petition is pending since 2020.
Enlightenment Controversy
In 2023, the Supreme Court accepted a special exemption petition filed by the Committee of Management Anjuman Intejamia Masjid, Varanasi. The SLP challenged the Allahabad High Court order dated August 3, 2023. The District Judge had directed to carry out an archaeological survey of the area where Gyanwapi Masjid is located. After the High Court dismissed the appeal, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in its August 4, 2023 order said that “We are unable to differ with the view of the High Court, particularly in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, … and recorded the submission of the Solicitor General. … that the entire procedure adopted by the ASI Any non-invasive method will be eliminated.
This was how to open Pandora’s Box. The court did not inquire into the intention of the plaintiffs in filing the 2022 civil suit claiming that they were entitled to perform rituals of deities allegedly present on the premises of Gyanawapi Masjid. Plaintiffs’ apparent attempt was to worship Hindu deities allegedly present in the mosque. If they were allowed to perform rituals and worship the deities, this would turn the mosque at least partially into a temple. That was in the teeth of the plain language of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act.
chain reaction
Was it difficult to see the intention of the plaintiffs and the consequences of allowing the prayer in the suit? In my opinion the Supreme Court should have exercised its power to do “full justice” under Article 142 of the Constitution, called the case on its file and dismissed the case holding that the esteemed Act should be upheld for 30 years. All costs. After the Gyanwapi order, there are disputes over Idgah Mosque in Mathura, Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh, Qutub Complex in Delhi and Ajmer Sharif Dargah in Rajasthan. Where will it end?
The result of the cognizable order will be similar to the infamous ADM Jabalpur case.