The Place of Worship Act, 1991 (Special Provisions): Safeguarding Religious Places or Stirring Discord?

The Places of Worship Act, 1991, was enacted to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they existed on 15 August 1947. On 22 May 2022, an oral observation by a Supreme Court judge led to various mosque surveys in the country. Due to that, disputes between the Hindu and Muslim communities erupted, and police violence occurred in many parts of the nation. Judicial bias or post-retirement interests could be the main reasons for such oral observations. The Supreme Court has stayed the surveys for now because the constitutionality of the Act remains under judicial review under Article 32 and other provisions.

India is a religiously sensitive union of states with a vast population that practices various religions. During the partition of 1947, millions were slaughtered in the name of religion, which, ironically, not a single religion teaches their followers. As a result, the Government of India decided to pass an act that would reinstate the nation’s peace and harmony. The then government, led by PV Narasimha Rao, implemented the Place of Worship Act, 1991, which included various provisions.

The act stated that the status of any place of worship would be frozen as it was on 15 August 1947, exempting the cases that were pending in courts and excluding the Babri Masjid case, which had been pending since the British era.

However, the country saw a sudden spurt in suits against mosque committees, especially filed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), after the 50th CJI, DY Chandrachud, passed an oral observation on May 22, 2022, that sections 3 and 4 of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, do not prohibit the “ascertainment of religious character” of any place of worship. He stated that such surveys do not violate the Act. If the Act freezes the religious status of a place of worship, one wonders what is the need and motive behind these surveys.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Chief Mohan Bhagwat stated in an event that Hindus should not go mosque to mosque searching for debris of temples. He mentioned that the Ayodhya dispute was an exception. Such statements raise concerns about control over the organisations. Is the RSS chief losing control over its affiliated organisations as new suits are being filed by the RSS that claim mosques and dargahs as the ancient sites of temples?

The lower courts began interpreting the oral observation by the CJI, DY Chandrachud as a guideline for the cases related to the Place of Worship Act, 1991. The courts began passing orders within hours after the suits for the survey of the mosques were filed, without proper hearings. The centuries-old mosques and dargah are being claimed by Hindu petitioners. There are a total of 11 such cases pending in the courts. From Ajmer Sharif Dargah in Ajmer, Rajasthan, to Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh.

The recent survey order, which was passed by a lower court within 5 hours in the Sambhal district, was the reason why more than half a dozen Muslim youths were killed in the locality by the Uttar Pradesh police. The Uttar Pradesh government claimed that the Muslim youths were creating obstacles in the work of the court. Reportedly, they were just standing there or passing by on their way to work near the survey site. The families of the victims are still awaiting justice. The Muslims of the country get almost no help or justice from the courts, which is concerning for their future as they constitute nearly 20% of the country's population. They are affected by such types of acts and oral observations. Their lives are getting worse day by day.

It is obvious that the oral observations being passed by judges about existing acts are tactics for their own post-retirement benefits from the government. While these oral judgements play a significant role in the judicial process by facilitating dialogue and understanding, they are not legally binding. The authoritative and enforceable decisions of the court are encapsulated in its written judgements and orders.

Former Justice Rohinton Nariman recently gave the inaugural lecture for the Ahmadi Foundation, set up in memory of the 26th Chief Justice of India. In his speech, he squarely focused on the point that secularism is what matters. It is noteworthy that he described the Babri Masjid judgement as a "travesty of justice," yet conceded that the jurists in that case considered the Places of Worship Act, 1991, to be practically a significant safeguard.

The Babri Masjid case judgement placed great importance on the Places of Worship Act, 1991, devoting five pages to interpreting its provisions. The Act, which aims to maintain the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947, was highlighted as a crucial legal safeguard for communal harmony. The jurists underscored its importance in preserving secularism and preventing future disputes over religious sites. By addressing this act extensively, the judgement not only reinforced its applicability but also provided guidelines for future conflicts, ensuring a legal framework to protect historical religious structures and promote social peace. Justice Nariman underlined that the judgement copy must be available in every district and high court to avoid further legal challenges against mosques and other religious places. His remarks testify to the continued legal and social complexities of religious sites in India, repeating the need for judicial sensibility and adherence to constitutional secularism.

After the horrific incidents all over India and the criticism from the legal fraternity, the spurts in suits are now on hold. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has directed trial courts nationwide to refrain from passing any effective order or conducting surveys concerning the existing religious structures in cases disputing their religious character till further order. The Supreme Court is currently hearing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenged the Place of Worship Acts, 1991.

The story on the Place of Worship Acts, 1991, is developing.

Mohammad Hesham Atik is a student pursuing Psychology from Jamia Millia Islamia.

Edited By: Sidra Aman

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Jamia Review or its members.