Nearly a week after a district court in Sambhal ordered a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, the sleepy Uttar Pradesh town has been rocked with violence that has left five dead and several others injured.
Now Sambhal’ s Jama Masjid is a “protected monument”, having been notified on December 22, 1920 under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. It has also been declared as a Monument of National importance.
At the heart of this controversy is the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Initially introduced with the objective of fostering communal harmony and preventing eruption of new Babri-Ram temple-like disputes, it is now in the eye of a storm.
So what is the Places of Worship Act and why is it so controversial?
In order to answer this, let us rewind to the 1990s, in the aftermath of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. Enacting the law was part of the Congress’s 1991 election manifesto. While introducing it in Parliament, then Home Minister SB Chavan said its enactment will go a long way in helping restore communal amity and goodwill.
Paradoxically, the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute itself was specifically kept outside its purview since the matter was being heard by courts.
Why is the Places of Worship Act in the news again?
A recent court order has trained the spotlight back on the Act. A district court allowed a plea filed by advocate Hari Shankar Jain and others claiming the right to access the Jama Masjid in Sambhal for a survey. The petitioners allege the mosque was built in 1526 by Mughal emperor Babur after demolishing a Hindu temple.
In an ideal world, a suit such as the one filed by Jain would be barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. However, title suits – or suit claiming access or the right to worship – have been allowed by courts even as a Constitutional challenge to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, is pending before the Supreme Court.
This is not an isolated order. Similar inspections have been allowed at the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura.
Both in the Mathura and Gyanvapi cases, the Masjid side has challenged this interpretation of the Places of Worship Act.
The claims in all three disputes essentially seek to change the religious character of a place of worship, something that is prohibited by the Place of Worship Act, 1991.
What does the Places of Worship Act, 1991 say?
It says that the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, must be maintained.
Or, “An Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
Section 3 of the Act bars the conversion, in full or part, of a place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination — or even a different segment of the same religious denomination.
What did the Supreme Court say about the Act?
The Supreme Court five-judge Constitution Bench, in its Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid judgment in 2019 made an observation that in effect weakened the Act.
“Historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law in their own hands. In preserving the character of places of public worship, Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future.”
In May 2022, Justice DY Chandrachud had said that although changing the nature of the religious place is barred under the 1991 law, the “ascertainment of a religious character of a place, as a processual instrument, may not necessarily fall foul of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 (of the Act)…”
In other words, an inquiry into what the nature of the place of worship was on August 15, 1947 can be allowed, even if that nature cannot be subsequently changed.
What is the current status of the Act?
At present, the Supreme Court currently has before it four petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act. In September 2022, a Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India UU Lalit had directed the government to file a response on its stand within two weeks. However the Centre is yet to file its affidavit.
The jury is out. The apex court is yet to hear final arguments to decide whether the 1991 Act bars even the filing of such pleas. Till then, politics will keep happening over the Places of Worship Act.
