Closing The Pandora’s Box: Places Of Worship Act 1991
On November 24, 2024, the city of Sambhal in northwestern Uttar Pradesh
witnessed clashes between police personnel and protestors, leading to the death
of at least five people and injuries to several others, including police
personnel. It has been alleged that the deaths were caused by firing by the
police personnel, an allegation vehemently denied by the UP Police. Whatever the
cause may have been, what's clear is that the Sambhal violence is just the
latest addition to the long list of temple- mosque disputes that unfortunately
plague the country. What's even more appalling is that such grievous incidents
of violence and subsequent loss of human lives may have, unintentionally, been
aided by judicial orders.
The trigger of the violence was allegedly a survey by the Archaeological Survey of India ordered by a trial court in Sambhal. It is ironic that an order passed by the court of law indirectly led to such an incident, just two days before November 26, 2024 – the Constitution Day of India. While judicial intervention, in most cases, is considered a go-to choice as far as communal incidents are concerned, this might not always be the case. In this regard, the Supreme Court recently has lambasted lower courts over such orders, arguing that the "Civil Courts Can't Run A Race With Supreme Court" The statute cited by the Supreme Court for this is a very contentious one – The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, adopted by the Congress government under Prime Minister P.V. Narsimha Rao.
The Act: Historical Overview
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act has generated no dearth of controversies, in the past and the present alike. And it might just continue to do so, provided it survives the vociferous attempts to repeal it.
The act came into force at a time when communalism in India was at its zenith. Though communal riots have unfortunately become ubiquitous in India, no rare sight in a country with extreme religious diversity including communities who had a troubled past with one another, the extent to which communal fervours had crept into the minds of the masses in that particular era was most probably unprecedented in the history of independent India.
The apple of discord, some say, was the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, which claimed that the Babri Mosque was built over a land where a temple once stood and that the contentious land is the birthplace of Lord Rama. The animosity that followed had reinvigorated communal passions between Hindus and Muslims in the country to a great extent. The then government, afraid that a number of other such movements could take place, passed the Act.
The Act is particularly famous, or rather infamous, for the provisions under Section 4 of the Act, which freezes the status of all the places of worship in the country as it was on August 15, 1947 – the day India became an independent country. That the religious character of any worship place cannot be changed after independence, which was backed by the rationale that independence was a new start for India and that to become a progressive country, it must let go of conflicts of the past, as such issues will only mar the progress of the country. The Act also quashed all the legal cases that revolved around disputes over the religious identity of a worship place. Section 6 of the Act also punishes violators with imprisonment up to 3 years.
While the intentions behind the passing of the Act might have been noble, morality certainly was not the sole reason this statute came into effect. Ever since the fall of the Rajiv Gandhi government, the politics of India was highly unstable. With India seeing 3 Prime Ministers in 2 years, governments falling like a pack of cards was a norm. The ruling party, not in the mood to concede power, was concerned that such movements may mobilize votes in favour of the BJP, which was heavily backing the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Thus, it would not be wrong to say that the passing of this legislation had more political undertones than it had to do with the welfare and security of the masses of India, which is considered one of the main criticisms of the Act.
Apart from the act being a result of political activism, it was then inveighed against for a surfeit of reasons, and still is, with a notable criticism being that the provisions of the Act are arbitrary. The cutoff date of August 15, 1947, was heavily opposed as it was alleged that the government deciding it unilaterally was an arbitrary decision and prevented redressal of the historical injustices that took place.
Most importantly, while the government reasoned that the purpose of the Act was to avoid communal flare-ups, it failed to take into account the elephant in the room – the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, which was raging at that time, arguing that the matter was already under the judiciary (sub judice). Indeed, a year after the passing of the Act, the Babri mosque was demolished, and to make matters worse, what followed is considered one of the most hideous communal riots in India - the 1993 Bombay riots.
This surely had raised questions over the efficiency of the government that despite prevention of communal riots over such disputes being one of the primary objectives of the Act, it failed to prevent primarily that menace in the first place. Almost as if the Act was a half-baked attempt to salvage something over which the government already had lost control. It is evident that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act has faced already a plethora of controversies, and the current kerfuffle around it is far from being a surprise.
Exacerbating present-day scenario
It wouldn't be wrong to say that the politics in our country is in a pitiable state, and communal issues have become not only the norm but also an essential part of politics, a subject that is left untouched by no political party, be it directly or indirectly. Communalism has crept into almost every other issue, whether the discourse is about subjects such as illegal immigration to bread-and-butter issues.
The several flare-ups over temple-mosque disputes are not isolated events but are by-products of a melting pot of communalism and ugly politics. It also serves as evidence of how mixing religion and state decisions can have dire consequences, not to mention it directly violates the doctrine of secularism enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The parties of such conflicts, so engrossed in proving themselves righteous and castigating the other party, often fail to take into account how such issues are negating the secular character of the country.
It is not that disputes of such nature, and the politics around it, did not have a presence in the past. However, what's new is the frequency at which such disputes pop up and the extreme extent to which they infest politics now, which certainly has the potential to affect the electoral outcomes across several states of the country. Before the 2019 verdict, which resolved the ages-old Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, much of the discourse around temple-mosque disputes was centred around that site only. It was hoped that finally resolving the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute amicably would serve as a textbook example of peaceful resolution of communal issues afterwards, and the grand old debate would be closed.
However, what followed was the vice versa and other temple-mosque disputes emerged out of the blue at a rapid pace, often at the cost of the fragile communal harmony that existed. The fact that some of these disputes were aggravated by political activism does not seem to be a coincidence either. Governments under different political parties with varying ideologies have used such disputes to their advantage, making a mockery of the government institutions while also outrightly violating Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees Freedom of Religion and the right to manage religious affairs.
Politicians, certainly not sacrosanct, are not the only ones responsible for such a debacle. The disputes were enabled because the arm of the state that keeps the executive in check was surprisingly not proactive enough. This wait-and-watch approach is perchance one of the main reasons we are staring at one crisis after another.
Judiciary: A spectator in the saga?
In such conditions, there is one institute in the country people look up to – the judiciary. And it is evident in this case that it has not been up to the mark. With that being said, the role of the judiciary in resolving the Ram Janmabhoomi and navigating other such disputes cannot be understated. However, the judiciary, on many occasions, has given contradictory judgements. In such a situation, the people cannot help but come to the conclusion that such disputes are shaped by the zealots stoking them and are not under the aegis of any higher noble institution.
In the 2019 verdict of the Ram Janmabhoomi case, the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the Places of Worship Act of 1991. However, in May 2022, the then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud observed that ascertaining the religious character of a place of worship is not an illicit act under the Places of Worship Act of 1991.
The lower courts, as per that order, can be considered correct in allowing civil suits and ordering the excavation of worship places. However, the Supreme Court in December 2024 ordered the lower courts not toregister any further suits in any temple-mosque dispute. Such contradicting judgments in a series have left plenty of room for confusion. It is imperative that the Supreme Court clarifies its stance and ends this state of ambiguity in further hearings when it will also decide the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.
Conclusion
India is a diverse country with a large population of folks adhering to different religions. Diversity can be both a boon and a curse, depending upon how the country utilizes it. When communities have a history of animosity and bloodshed, it becomes even more important to do whatever is necessary to avoid further violence. As such, India cannot continue to be a victim of a vicious cycle of communal violence. The intent of this article is certainly not to prevent any discourse or action that aims to correct historical injustices.
However, it should be ensured that nothing should come at the cost of human lives. The Supreme Court's order barring lower courts from taking up new cases surrounding temple-mosque disputes is a step in the right direction. The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 is far from being a flawless statute. However, currently, it offers some hope as it has the potential to stop the cycle of continued religious enmity over such disputes and close the Pandora's box of endless conflicts. It is absolutely imperative that the Supreme Court makes a wise judgment while deciding the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.
Bibliography:
The trigger of the violence was allegedly a survey by the Archaeological Survey of India ordered by a trial court in Sambhal. It is ironic that an order passed by the court of law indirectly led to such an incident, just two days before November 26, 2024 – the Constitution Day of India. While judicial intervention, in most cases, is considered a go-to choice as far as communal incidents are concerned, this might not always be the case. In this regard, the Supreme Court recently has lambasted lower courts over such orders, arguing that the "Civil Courts Can't Run A Race With Supreme Court" The statute cited by the Supreme Court for this is a very contentious one – The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, adopted by the Congress government under Prime Minister P.V. Narsimha Rao.
The Act: Historical Overview
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act has generated no dearth of controversies, in the past and the present alike. And it might just continue to do so, provided it survives the vociferous attempts to repeal it.
The act came into force at a time when communalism in India was at its zenith. Though communal riots have unfortunately become ubiquitous in India, no rare sight in a country with extreme religious diversity including communities who had a troubled past with one another, the extent to which communal fervours had crept into the minds of the masses in that particular era was most probably unprecedented in the history of independent India.
The apple of discord, some say, was the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, which claimed that the Babri Mosque was built over a land where a temple once stood and that the contentious land is the birthplace of Lord Rama. The animosity that followed had reinvigorated communal passions between Hindus and Muslims in the country to a great extent. The then government, afraid that a number of other such movements could take place, passed the Act.
The Act is particularly famous, or rather infamous, for the provisions under Section 4 of the Act, which freezes the status of all the places of worship in the country as it was on August 15, 1947 – the day India became an independent country. That the religious character of any worship place cannot be changed after independence, which was backed by the rationale that independence was a new start for India and that to become a progressive country, it must let go of conflicts of the past, as such issues will only mar the progress of the country. The Act also quashed all the legal cases that revolved around disputes over the religious identity of a worship place. Section 6 of the Act also punishes violators with imprisonment up to 3 years.
While the intentions behind the passing of the Act might have been noble, morality certainly was not the sole reason this statute came into effect. Ever since the fall of the Rajiv Gandhi government, the politics of India was highly unstable. With India seeing 3 Prime Ministers in 2 years, governments falling like a pack of cards was a norm. The ruling party, not in the mood to concede power, was concerned that such movements may mobilize votes in favour of the BJP, which was heavily backing the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Thus, it would not be wrong to say that the passing of this legislation had more political undertones than it had to do with the welfare and security of the masses of India, which is considered one of the main criticisms of the Act.
Apart from the act being a result of political activism, it was then inveighed against for a surfeit of reasons, and still is, with a notable criticism being that the provisions of the Act are arbitrary. The cutoff date of August 15, 1947, was heavily opposed as it was alleged that the government deciding it unilaterally was an arbitrary decision and prevented redressal of the historical injustices that took place.
Most importantly, while the government reasoned that the purpose of the Act was to avoid communal flare-ups, it failed to take into account the elephant in the room – the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, which was raging at that time, arguing that the matter was already under the judiciary (sub judice). Indeed, a year after the passing of the Act, the Babri mosque was demolished, and to make matters worse, what followed is considered one of the most hideous communal riots in India - the 1993 Bombay riots.
This surely had raised questions over the efficiency of the government that despite prevention of communal riots over such disputes being one of the primary objectives of the Act, it failed to prevent primarily that menace in the first place. Almost as if the Act was a half-baked attempt to salvage something over which the government already had lost control. It is evident that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act has faced already a plethora of controversies, and the current kerfuffle around it is far from being a surprise.
Exacerbating present-day scenario
It wouldn't be wrong to say that the politics in our country is in a pitiable state, and communal issues have become not only the norm but also an essential part of politics, a subject that is left untouched by no political party, be it directly or indirectly. Communalism has crept into almost every other issue, whether the discourse is about subjects such as illegal immigration to bread-and-butter issues.
The several flare-ups over temple-mosque disputes are not isolated events but are by-products of a melting pot of communalism and ugly politics. It also serves as evidence of how mixing religion and state decisions can have dire consequences, not to mention it directly violates the doctrine of secularism enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The parties of such conflicts, so engrossed in proving themselves righteous and castigating the other party, often fail to take into account how such issues are negating the secular character of the country.
It is not that disputes of such nature, and the politics around it, did not have a presence in the past. However, what's new is the frequency at which such disputes pop up and the extreme extent to which they infest politics now, which certainly has the potential to affect the electoral outcomes across several states of the country. Before the 2019 verdict, which resolved the ages-old Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, much of the discourse around temple-mosque disputes was centred around that site only. It was hoped that finally resolving the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute amicably would serve as a textbook example of peaceful resolution of communal issues afterwards, and the grand old debate would be closed.
However, what followed was the vice versa and other temple-mosque disputes emerged out of the blue at a rapid pace, often at the cost of the fragile communal harmony that existed. The fact that some of these disputes were aggravated by political activism does not seem to be a coincidence either. Governments under different political parties with varying ideologies have used such disputes to their advantage, making a mockery of the government institutions while also outrightly violating Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees Freedom of Religion and the right to manage religious affairs.
Politicians, certainly not sacrosanct, are not the only ones responsible for such a debacle. The disputes were enabled because the arm of the state that keeps the executive in check was surprisingly not proactive enough. This wait-and-watch approach is perchance one of the main reasons we are staring at one crisis after another.
Judiciary: A spectator in the saga?
In such conditions, there is one institute in the country people look up to – the judiciary. And it is evident in this case that it has not been up to the mark. With that being said, the role of the judiciary in resolving the Ram Janmabhoomi and navigating other such disputes cannot be understated. However, the judiciary, on many occasions, has given contradictory judgements. In such a situation, the people cannot help but come to the conclusion that such disputes are shaped by the zealots stoking them and are not under the aegis of any higher noble institution.
In the 2019 verdict of the Ram Janmabhoomi case, the Supreme Court had upheld the validity of the Places of Worship Act of 1991. However, in May 2022, the then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud observed that ascertaining the religious character of a place of worship is not an illicit act under the Places of Worship Act of 1991.
The lower courts, as per that order, can be considered correct in allowing civil suits and ordering the excavation of worship places. However, the Supreme Court in December 2024 ordered the lower courts not toregister any further suits in any temple-mosque dispute. Such contradicting judgments in a series have left plenty of room for confusion. It is imperative that the Supreme Court clarifies its stance and ends this state of ambiguity in further hearings when it will also decide the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.
Conclusion
India is a diverse country with a large population of folks adhering to different religions. Diversity can be both a boon and a curse, depending upon how the country utilizes it. When communities have a history of animosity and bloodshed, it becomes even more important to do whatever is necessary to avoid further violence. As such, India cannot continue to be a victim of a vicious cycle of communal violence. The intent of this article is certainly not to prevent any discourse or action that aims to correct historical injustices.
However, it should be ensured that nothing should come at the cost of human lives. The Supreme Court's order barring lower courts from taking up new cases surrounding temple-mosque disputes is a step in the right direction. The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 is far from being a flawless statute. However, currently, it offers some hope as it has the potential to stop the cycle of continued religious enmity over such disputes and close the Pandora's box of endless conflicts. It is absolutely imperative that the Supreme Court makes a wise judgment while deciding the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.
Bibliography:
- The Hindu. (2024, December 16). The pending mosque-temple disputes across India. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-pending-mosque-temple-disputes-across-india-explained/article68981657.ece
- Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, No. 42 of 1991, Acts of Parliament, 1991 (India).
- Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, No. 42 of 1991, § 4, Acts of Parliament, 1991 (India).
- Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, No. 42 of 1991, § 6, Acts of Parliament, 1991 (India).
- M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors., AIRONLINE 2019 SC 1420
- Supreme Court Observer. (n.d.). Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India: Constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act – Case background. https://www.scobserver.in/cases/ashwini-kumar-upadhyay-union-of-india-constitutionality-of-the-places-of-worship-act-case-background/
- Bar and Bench. (2022, May 20). Ascertainment of religious character of place of worship not barred under Places of Worship Act: Supreme Court observes. https://www.barandbench.com/news/ascertainment-of-religious-character-of-a-place-of-worship-not-barred-under-places-of-worship-act-supreme-court
- Live Law. (2024, December 12). Supreme Court stops registration of new suits against places of worship, bars passing of final/survey orders in pending suits. https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-bars-registration-of-new-suits-against-places-of-worship-stops-courts-from-passing-effectivefinalsurvey-orders-in-pending-suits-278147
Share this Article
Popular Articles
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...
Increased Age For Girls Marriage
It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...
Facade of Social Media
One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...
Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...
The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...
Comments