The Places of Worship Act, 1991, has recently come under scrutiny due to rising disputes over religious sites, such as the ongoing controversy over the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. Similar claims have previously been made regarding the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, Shahi Idgah in Mathura, and Kamal Maula Mosque in Madhya Pradesh. These disputes revolve around the assertion that some mosques were built by demolishing Hindu temples. Here’s an in-depth look at the Act, its implications, and the ongoing debates.

What Is the Places of Worship Act, 1991?

The Act was enacted during Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao's tenure to maintain the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. It prohibits:

Conversion of any place of worship from one religion to another.

Initiation of new legal cases regarding the religious nature of a site.

The only exception to this law was the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which was already under judicial scrutiny when the Act came into force.

Under the Act:

Violators can face 1 to 3 years imprisonment or fines. Section 4 ensures that the religious character of any place of worship remains unchanged as it was on August 15, 1947.

Recent Controversies and Legal Challenges

Despite the law, several new petitions regarding religious sites have surfaced in recent years. Key developments include:

Gyanvapi Mosque Case: In May 2022, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud remarked that the Act doesn’t prevent determining the religious nature of a site, provided no intent exists to alter its character from what it was in 1947. This observation has led to district courts accepting similar cases for hearing, sparking a wave of disputes.

Mathura’s Shahi Idgah Dispute: Following the Gyanvapi case, petitions regarding the Krishna Janmabhoomi and Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura have also emerged, questioning the validity of the Act.

Supreme Court's Role

The constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court. Six petitions argue that:

The Act violates secularism by barring judicial remedies for restoring religious sites.

The legislation infringes upon fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 25 of the Constitution.

The central government has yet to file its response, despite multiple extensions granted since the Supreme Court’s first notice in March 2021.

Arguments For and Against the Act

Supporters of the Act: Preserve Religious Harmony: Proponents argue that the Act prevents historical disputes from escalating and ensures communal peace. Prevent Misuse: It restricts the re-litigation of disputes resolved decades ago, maintaining the status quo.

Critics of the Act: Historical Injustice: Critics claim the Act perpetuates wrongs committed during invasions, where Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist temples were allegedly converted into mosques. Violation of Rights: Some argue it denies communities the right to restore their religious sites. Legislative Overreach: The law is criticized for covering issues that some believe fall under state jurisdiction, such as public order and pilgrimage.

The Historical Context of the Act The law was introduced during a politically sensitive time in 1991 when the Ram Mandir movement was at its peak. The Congress government, led by Narasimha Rao, sought to curb communal tensions by legislating against further disputes. The Act was seen as a countermeasure to the rising influence of the Ram Mandir movement, spearheaded by BJP leader Lal Krishna Advani, whose Rath Yatra had already led to political and communal unrest.

What’s Next?

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the petitions challenging the Act, questions linger: Will the Act be upheld as a cornerstone of secularism? Could its provisions be altered or repealed, potentially reigniting disputes over religious sites? How will this affect ongoing controversies like those in Mathura and Varanasi? The Places of Worship Act remains a contentious issue, balancing the preservation of communal harmony with calls to address historical grievances. The Supreme Court's decision could shape the future of religious coexistence in India.