What are the arguments for and against the Places of Worship Act?

Supreme Court begins hearings on Places of Worship Act 1991

The Supreme Court issued an important order today. The Supreme Court has asked lower courts not to issue any new valid orders in disputes related to the religious character of any place of worship. In addition, surveys of religious sites are prohibited. A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan said that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which came into force in 1991, did not allow any such proceedings until the Act until effective. No such new proceedings will be permitted unless constitutionality is established.

As you know, the Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act of 1991. The law, which began on August 15, 1947, considers any place of worship supreme and prohibits any change in its religious form. The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute goes beyond its ambit as the issue was before the courts even before the law was implemented. Currently, the Supreme Court is hearing petitions from individuals and organizations such as lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh, and former Rajya Sabha member Subramanian Swamy, seeking the repeal of the 1991 law. Although leaders like Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, CPM and RJD leader Manoj Jha are in favor of maintaining the law.

Detailed hearings and arguments on the issue will take place in the Supreme Court in the coming days. But broadly speaking, there are 8 questions or arguments in total about this law, which has become a source of dispute between temples and mosques and could determine their future. You could also say that the arguments for and against the Places of Worship Act generally go like this.

Arguments against the Places of Worship Act

First – Critics of the 1991 law argue that it prohibits judicial review and that because judicial review is an important element of the constitution, it should not be retained. They feel that making this law above judicial review is like bypassing the role of the Indian judiciary and judiciary.

second – The fixation of August 15, 1947 – Independence Day, as the cut-off date for deciding the nature of religious places was also considered arbitrary. Those who oppose the law argue that the date ignores injustices that have been done historically. Additionally, it prohibits addressing any form of violation that occurred before this date.

third – One of the arguments criticized for the law is that it ignores the right to religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution. They believe the law violates the religious rights of followers of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. Their argument is that because of the law they can neither claim their place of worship nor access it, violating religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution.

fourth – Those questioning the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act also argue that it violates the principle of secularism, which is a very important aspect of the constitution. Because this law directly or indirectly gives priority to one particular community over another. Therefore, they argue that the law does not treat religions equally.

fifth– The most criticized issue with the law is that it excludes the Ayodhya dispute from its ambit. Critics of the law argue that, in this way, it doubles down on other religious sites.

Arguments for the Places of Worship Act

First – One denouement of the legal and social debate surrounding the law also inadvertently turned to broader public issues. Supporters of the law argue that rejecting the law’s constitutionality means it will exacerbate public tensions in society. Tensions are likely to rise especially at sensitive sites such as temples and mosques.

second – Supporters of the law argue that one of its purposes is to preserve India’s secularism. Because this religious harmony is maintained in the country. He gave the example of rising tensions in some areas following investigations into mosques and mosques, and said without the law there was a risk of hatred spreading in society.

third – Supporters of the law argue that in the absence of the law, religious matters will be used for political purposes. In this case, one can work to achieve one’s political goals by dividing society. He also cited examples of old disputes leading to social tension and division.