Today the Supreme Court holds a large and important hearing on the Places of Worship Act
After Ayodhya, Mathura, Kashi, Bhojshala, Sambhal, Badaun, Ajmer… The list of disputes between temples and mosques is getting longer by the day. The question that has been raised repeatedly is whether such cases should be allowed to be litigated in different courts in the country? Will the nature of religious sites be redefined? At the heart of these issues is a law called the Places of Worship Act. What this is, why it is this, why the Supreme Court is hearing this starting today, we find out today.
What places of worship are controversial?
First let’s look at the growing scope of the controversy. Ayodhya – Within the living memory, the Babri Masjid used to be there and now there is the Ram Temple. Reason – Claim that the mosque was built at the birthplace of Shri Ram. The Supreme Court provided some evidence of this. The court found that the Hindu side’s argument was valid and the way was cleared for the construction of the temple. Build a temple. An inauguration ceremony was held. Ayodhya dispute resolved. But divisions began to deepen elsewhere.
A voice rang out – Ayodhya was but a glimpse, only Kashi and Mathura remained. In Kashgar, there is a similar controversy over the Gyanvapi Masjid-Shringar Gauri temple. Meanwhile, this Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura has long been the subject of controversy over the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi. But now, apart from the three ancient mosques of Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashgar, new mosques and Islamic religious sites are increasingly attracting attention from such controversies.
The Bhojsala complex in Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh has also been involved in this series of controversies. Is it the Kamal Maulana Mosque or the Saraswati Temple? Likewise, was the courtyard of the Jama Masjid in Sambhar, Uttar Pradesh, once the Harihar Temple? Meanwhile, after Jama Masjid in Padang was claimed to be the Neelkant temple, the dargah of Khwaja Munuddin Chishti in Ajmer, now in Rajasthan, was also claimed to be Jama Masjid. Temple of Khadev.
The Muslims filed 12 petitions in the Supreme Court in this regard, saying that making such a claim and then allowing an investigation is wasteful and will disturb religious harmony. To do so, they invoked the same Places of Worship Act that the Supreme Court will hear from today.
What is the Places of Worship Act?
The law was enacted in 1991. At that time, there was a Congress government at the Center led by PV Narasimha Rao. The Ram Mandir movement was at its peak. Thinking the temple controversy could deepen across the country, India’s parliament has come up with an initiative. In August 1991, then Home Minister Shankarao Chavan introduced a bill called the Places of Worship Bill in the Lok Sabha. The law was also passed by the Lok Sabha on September 10, 1991, and was passed by the Lok Sabha two days later.
There are 7 articles in this law. The Act holds that the religious character of any place of worship is paramount and says that no changes can be made to the place as it existed on August 15, 1947. Simply put, if a place was a temple on August 15, 1947, it was still a temple, if it was a mosque, it was still a mosque, and a church was still a church, and its form cannot be tampered with.
However, under the law, the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid controversy was excluded from its ambit as the issue was pending before the courts at that time. The law also stipulates that anyone who violates the law and attempts to change the nature of a religious site may be punished with imprisonment of one to three years and a fine. The law’s constitutionality is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court.
What petitions have been filed with SC?
The first petition was filed by lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The case was filed in the court in 2020 as Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Government of India. Later, similar petitions were filed by Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh and former Lok Sabha member Subramanian Swamy.
All of them challenged the law’s constitutionality. They say sections 2, 3 and 4 of the law are unconstitutional. Their demand is that the law be declared unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental rights of Hindus and some other religious people. Furthermore, since the Act is not subject to judicial review, its validity should not be taken for granted.
Lawyer Ashwini Kumar, the lead petitioner in the case, argued that the law was beyond the statutory powers of the central government. They say the law violates the rights of followers of Hindu, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh religions. Upadia’s argument is that due to this law, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh people cannot claim sovereignty over religious sites destroyed by foreign invaders and that the law violates their fundamental rights.
On one hand, there are those questioning the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act, led by lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay; on the other hand, there is the Ulama Hind Party Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, CPM and RJD leader Manoj Jha. It has been referred to the Supreme Court. In response, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind has submitted a petition in 2022 in support. In his petition, Jamiat said the law was important to maintain secularism and communal harmony in India.
The Supreme Court had issued a notice to the central government on the matter in March 2021, but the government is yet to make its stand clear to the court on the issue. Amid growing demands for an inquiry into mosques and masjids, it is important that the Supreme Court is hearing pending petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Today, a special court headed by Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna will hear the matter at 3.30 pm.
