INTRODUCTION
With former Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud’s remark in the Ram Janam Bhoomi – Babri Masjid case [1]About “non-invasive survey allowed” causing uproar during the already disturbed violent scenario of Jama Masjid situation, it becomes the need of the hour to discuss the statutory act upon which millions of people are relying to preserve their sacred places of worship – Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The act was brought with the intent to calm the communal violence and to save people’s faith and lives from any further aggression as witnessed during the Ram Janam Bhoomi movement. The Act did solve the long-standing battle of the Ram Janam Bhoomi dispute, but there seems a rise in other such movements whilst the Act clearly states to not disturb any religious site. In May 2022 after Justice Chandrachud’s remark about the non-invasive survey [2], such movements are on the rise.
The act aiming to prevent the uprooting of worship places because of a question on its true nature has been neglected many times as observed that local courts in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are entertaining civil suits challenging the true character of mosques across the country, despite knowing that such suits violate the 1991 act which freezes the character of religious sites as they existed on August 15, 1947 and stops the admission of any suit aiming to challenge and change a religious site.[3]
WHAT IS THE PLACES OF WORSHIP (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT,1991?
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, of 1991, is a short three-page legislation containing only seven sections. The opening clause states the legislation’s objective which is to prohibit the conversion of any place of worship and to maintain the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
Important sections, provisions, and exceptions of the act –
- Section 3 – declares that no person shall convert any place of worship of any religion into one of a different religion. It prohibits intra-religious conversion of sites as well.[4]
- Section 4(1) – provides that the religious character of a place of worship shall continue to be the same as it was on August 15, 1947. [5]
- Section 4(2) – provides that all pending suits, appeals, or other proceedings regarding conversion of the character of a place of worship existing on August 15, 1947, will stand abated when the Act commences and no fresh proceedings can be filed. Section 4(2) makes an exception that legal proceedings can be initiated if the religious character of any place of worship was converted after August 15, 1947.[6]
- Section 4 (3)(a) – makes an exception for any place of worship that is an ancient and historical monument or an archaeological site or remains covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and it also protects sites that are administered by Archaeological Survey of India.[7]
- Section 5 – the Act exempted the Ram Janmabhoomi from its application and ended up being the solution to the Ram Janam Bhoomi – Babri Masjid dispute.[8]
- Section 6 – Penalties – The Act establishes penalties for violation – imprisonment of up to three years and fines for attempting to change the religious character of a place of worship.[9]
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ACT
In August 1991, the Congress government was in power with P.V. Narasimha Rao as the Prime Minister. A year back in 1990, under the leadership of L.K. Advani, the Bharatiya Janata Party and Sangh Parivaar organizations started the Ram Janam Bhoomi movement. This movement disturbed the whole country’s environment with Hindu-Muslim riots. All this led Narasimha Rao to decide that whatever violence happened because of the Ayodhya dispute should never be repeated. The ruling party on 23rd August 1991 introduced a bill in the Parliament – “Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Bill,1991.” There was strong opposition from BJP MPs, calling it the blackest bill of the Parliament. Nonetheless, the bill was passed. The Act set up a cut-off date – 15th August 1947 from which all the religious sites and their character as of the date will be legally protected by the Union of India. Any proceeding mutually settled before the act was not an issue, any pending proceeding will be terminated.
15th August 1947 selection – two core principles were considered – state secularism and non-retrogression. The Republic of India does not have a state religion therefore has the responsibility to protect every religion equally. The date was selected as when the country got freed, from then onwards any worshipping place in the country are State’s legacy and the Indian state must protect these. The principle of non-retrogression emphasizes the fact that we will not keep living in the past. The state cannot afford to search the history of demolitions to find the true nature of each place and reallocate it to its original followers. The state has the duty that after independence and the formation of a sovereign democratic state, it needs to stop the former blood-shed and move ahead. [10]
CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING THE PLACES OF WORSHIP (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1991 – DOES IT FORM BASIC STRUCTURE? CAN IT BE REMOVED?
The Ayodhya Verdict [11]States that by enacting the act, the Parliament wanted to ensure independence from colonial rule and safeguard and preserve the nature of every religion’s worship place. The law is addressed to the State as well as the citizens of the nation. The norms align with the Fundamental Duties under Article 51A thus mandating the citizens as well to maintain them. The State enacted the law enforcing a constitutional commitment to uphold equality and secularism which form the basic feature of the Constitution. Thus, the directions and spirit of the Act do form the basic feature of secularism. The verdict also states that non-retrogression is a foundational feature of fundamental constitutional principles like secularism and equality. Thus, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, of 1991 is a legislation aiming to preserve non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular State.
IS THERE A NEED TO AMEND OR TO REPEAL THE ACT?
The arguments siding with amending the act focus on saving it as it maintains the unity of the country by strengthening people’s trust in our secular model and repealing it would mean many more episodes of Ram Janam Bhoomi, Jama Masjid, Shahi Idigah, Ajmer Sharif outbursts. The act can be amended with more clarity, strict punishments, and better implementation to control such outbursts. There can also be amendments that such sensitive cases can only be heard by high courts or supreme court as local courts have now and then accepted such challenging petitions despite the existing act. There should also be a provision for punishment for politicizing and mobilizing people to disrupt society and for vote bank politics.
The arguments for repealing the act side with the fact that it violates the right to freedom of religion, as one cannot claim a place of worship if its nature has changed due to this act. It is also slammed with the accusation that it violates the basic feature of judicial review by setting the cut-off date as 15 August 1947 so that even a review petition cannot be filed. It is also viewed as a politicized act when it made an exception for the Ram Janam Bhoomi that involved major vote bank politics. Critics say that the act was intended to protect India’s secular nature by preserving religious harmony, but it has inadvertently allowed for the suppression of certain religious communities’ claims to historical sites, thus undermining the secular nature of the nation.
CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 needs to be implemented better to solve the communal disputes and violence nationwide. This act was brought considering the disruption witnessed during the Ram Janam Bhoomi movement. It should continue to protect people’s faith and trust in both their religion and the government’s capability. This act is one of the central tenets of our Constitution’s basic structural feature – secularism. It should not be repealed but amended with more strict provisions so that no one can dare to mobilize people in the name of religion. Our Constitution does guarantee the right to worship, but not everywhere, it only protects our right to worship at places that form the essence of one’s religion. If in the present time, mosques are demolished then how are we protecting the minority’s right to freedom of religion? It is no hidden fact that many temples have been demolished in history by barbaric invaders, but even Hindu kings have time and then destructed Jain temples and Buddhist monasteries to demonstrate their power like Kashmiri king Harsha, Parmara dynasty rulers in Gujarat, etc. The present scenario demands us to leave the black shadows of the past and move towards a brighter future envisaging inclusive development. Only in this way, we can fight the wounds of our divided past and heal together.
Author(s) Name: Bhavya Shrivastava (Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) New Law College, Pune)
References:
[1] M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LR v MAHANT SURESH DAS AIROnline 2019 SC 1730
[2] ‘Interpreting the Places of Worship Act,1991’ ( DrishtiIAS, 02 December 2024) < https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/interpreting-the-places-of-worship-act-> accessed on 04 December 2024
[3] Aaratrika Bhaumik ‘The salience of the Places of Worship Act and the Gyanvapi precedent’ The Hindu 09 December 2024 <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/salience-of-places-of-worship-act-gyanvapi-precedent/article68937051.ece > last accessed on 09 December 2024
[4] The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, s3
[5] The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, s4
[6] ibid
[7] ibid
[8] The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, s5
[9] The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, s6
[10] M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LR v MAHANT SURESH DAS AIR Online 2019 SC 1730
[11] ibid
