The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, commonly known as the Places of Worship Act, is a law that has been the subject of much debate and controversy since its enactment. This law aims to maintain the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, the date of India’s independence. 

The law was in backdrop of ongoing controversies of the then still standing Babri Masjid. LK Advani’s Rath Yatra was going on and around the same time firing on Kar Sevaks was happening in UP.

While the Act’s objective was to promote religious harmony, its implementation and interpretation have sparked numerous controversies. This blog post will delve into the details of the Places of Worship Act, exploring the key arguments surrounding it and providing real-world examples to illustrate the complexities involved along with recent events.

Understanding the Places of Worship Act (1991)

The Places of Worship Act essentially freezes the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. This means that if a structure was identified as a mosque, temple, church, gurudwara, or any other place of worship on that date, its religious designation is legally protected and cannot be changed. 

While introducing the Bill in Rajya Sabha the then Home Minister S.B. Chavhan had stated, “In recent years, we have noticed with anxiety an alarming rise of intolerance propagated by certain sections for their narrow vested interests. One of the methods… is taking resort to forcible conversion of places of worship to create new disputes and to rake up old controversies… We consider it necessary to take steps to put an immediate end to such unfortunate conflicts and foreclose any new controversies.”

“I am sure that enactment of this Bill will go a long way in helping to restore communal amity and goodwill.”

The Act was passed in the context of the highly contentious Ayodhya dispute, where the Babri Masjid, a centuries-old mosque, was yet to be demolished in 1992 by Hindu groups who claimed the site was the birthplace of Lord Rama. This demolition triggered widespread communal violence and social unrest.  

The Act outlines the following key legal provisions:

• Section 3: Bar on Conversion of Places of Worship: This is the core provision of the Act. It very explicitly prohibits the conversion of any place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination or even a different segment of the same religious denomination.  
• Section 4(1): Declaration as to the Religious Character of Places of Worship: This section declares that the religious character of a place of worship existing on August 15, 1947, shall continue to be the same.  
• Section 4(2): Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts: This is a crucial aspect of the Act. It bars any court from entertaining any suit or legal proceeding that seeks to change the religious character of a place of worship, as it existed on August 15, 1947 after the act gets notified.
• Section 5: Act Not to Apply in case of Ram Janmbhumi- Babri Masjid case : This section provides a stark exemption that it doesn’t apply to Ram Janmbhumi- Babri Masjid case 
• Section 7: Overriding Effect: This section provides that the act has an overriding effect on any other laws in effect therein. 

Controversies Surrounding the 1991 Places of Worship Act

Despite its stated intentions, the Places of Worship Act has attracted criticism for several reasons, raising important legal and constitutional questions:

• Impeding Historical Inquiry and Right to Remedy: It is  argued that the Act effectively shuts the door on historical inquiry and potential legal remedies for historical injustices. This raises questions about the balance between preserving public order and addressing historical grievances. 
• Potential Injustice to Certain Communities and Impact on Secularism: Some argue that the Act freezes a potentially unjust status quo as of 1947, potentially overlooking historical instances where places of worship were converted through force or coercion in the pre-independence era. This raises complex questions about historical justice, secularism, and the role of the state in addressing historical wrongs. Does the Act’s focus on the 1947 status quo adequately address the complexities of pre-independence history and potential injustices?

Another question that arises is that, wouldn’t such an act grow more anger and rage in the minds of commoners? In turn it can be argued that it has had a huge potential of dealing more damage than resolving it.  

• Conflict with Fundamental Rights: Some legal scholars argue that the Act may conflict with certain fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, such as the right to freedom of religion (Article 25) and the right to judicial remedies (Article 32). In the case of Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, 2016 INSC 1186 the Supreme Court said, “The Citizen’s inability to access courts or any other adjudicatory mechanism provided for determination of rights and obligations is bound to result in denial of the guarantee contained in Article 14 both concerning equality before the law as well as equal protection of laws.”

Real-World Examples of Places of Worship Act:

• The Ayodhya Dispute: The 1991 Places of Worship Act played a significant role in the legal proceedings surrounding the Ayodhya dispute. While the Supreme Court’s 2019 verdict allowed for the construction of a Ram temple on the disputed site (due to the unique circumstances and the acceptance of the Archaeological Survey of India’s findings), it upheld the core principle of the Act, maintaining the religious character of all other places of worship as of 1947. This case vividly illustrates the complexities arising from the interaction of historical claims, legal provisions, and the need to maintain public order. 
• The Gyanvapi Mosque Controversy: The recent controversy surrounding the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, where Hindu petitioners claim that parts of the mosque complex were originally a Hindu temple, has reignited the debate surrounding the Places of Worship Act. The District Court of Varanasi initial order for a survey of the mosque complex raised questions about the Act’s scope and whether it could be circumvented by framing disputes in a certain way. In 2023, the Supreme Court had allowed for the survey as well, which was also criticised. 

The Future of the Act and Its Impact on Religious Harmony

The Places of Worship Act remains a highly debated topic in India. While it has undoubtedly contributed to preventing further religious violence stemming from disputes over places of worship, concerns regarding historical accuracy, potential injustices, and its impact on the nation’s secular fabric persist. The ongoing legal challenges and public discussions surrounding the Gyanvapi mosque and other similar cases demonstrate the continuing struggle to balance the Act’s provisions with historical narratives and the aspirations of various religious communities.

The Gyanvapi order had opened the Pandora’s Box for more such complaints claiming the ownership of such places as belonging to their religion, be it Shahi Jama Masjid of Sambhal or dargah of Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer or Atala Mosque in Jaunpur amongst many.

Recently, the Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court with claims that the Act violates Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has recently stopped the civil courts from registering any new cases which challenge the ownership of such places and also stopped them from issuing survey orders.

Conclusion:

The Places of Worship Act, 1991, is a complex piece of legislation that seeks to maintain religious harmony by preserving the status quo of places of worship as of 1947. However, the Act’s implementation and interpretation have been surrounded by controversy, raising questions about historical inquiry, potential injustices, and the balance between religious freedom and secular principles. The 19 Places of Worship Act continues to be a subject of intense legal and social debate in India with the Supreme Court’s upcoming orders and the judgement playing a crucial part in its future.

Note:

• This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
• The specific laws and regulations may vary and are subject to change.
• It is always recommended to consult with a legal professional for personalized guidance on any legal matter.
• The examples provided are illustrative and may not reflect actual case scenarios.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. If you are facing a legal issue, consult with a qualified attorney.

Also read : Navigating the Waqf System in India: What You Need to Know