In India, the places of worship are not merely structures but a symbol of faith, community, and complex interplay of tradition and modernity the spell out the nation’s sacred journey. The recent order passed by the newly appointed CJI Sanjiv Khanna that prohibited all the trial court from entertaining any more application or petitions challenging the ownership or title of religious sites under the Places of Worship Act, 1991 and also prohibited the courts who have taken the cognizance of these petitions or have made interim orders of survey that they will not pass any more orders on those petitions came as a huge relief. Justice Khanna is man of few words but a very sound judge who have taken a different path than his predecessor Justice DY Chandrachud, who said that merely allowing a survey does not violates the places of worship act, 1991, which open a floodgate of suits challenging character of various religious sites across the country.
When India gained independence after a long battle and numerous sacrifices, we resolved to leave the past behind and embrace a new future. But these petitions dragging the communal past into a present that will eventually create a rift in society which is not good for a modern India. However, all these petitions which challenge the character of the religious sites are indirectly challenges the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
The Places of Worship Bill was tabled as part of a promise made in the Congress manifesto in reaction to the communal unrest precipitated by L.K. Advani’s Rath Yatra and the Kalyan Singh government’s purchase of property near the Babri Masjid. The Act establishes 15 August 1947 as the cutoff date for maintaining the status quo for all places of worship, settles all prevailing disputes as of this date, makes an exception for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid, buildings under ASI governance, and cases settled by mutual acquiescence or judicial decree prior to the Act, and imposes a three-year sentence and a fine for any involvement in converting a religious shrine to that of another faith or denomination.
Now these petitions pose a number of questions before the apex court, the most important questions are whether the places of worship act is a forming part of the basic structure of the constitution, secondly whether the exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid violates the right to equality of devotees of lord Krishna in Mathura and lord Shiva in Banaras, third and I think the heart of these petitions is whether excluding the judicial review violates the basic structure doctrine of our constitution.
Is 1991 act furthers the cause of Secularism?
Understanding secularism, a fundamental concept of the Indian people, is crucial when assessing the constitutional legitimacy of legislation based on the Constitution. Secularism is one aspect of the right to equality that is woven into the fabric of our Constitution like a golden thread. Our perspective of secularism is that the State shall have no religion and shall treat all religions and religious organizations equally, without interfering in any way with their right to religion, faith, and worship.
However, one of the most prized principles of secularism—faith—has been called into question by the recent issue over the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Faith is a matter of personal tenet and the right to have a personal relationship with what one considers being one’s maker, creator, or cosmos, which one believes governs the forces of the universe and the existence of beings.
The Act safeguards the faith of those who are devoted to these places of worship in addition to maintaining the status quo of the current places of worship. The SC in Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case clearly emphasized that The Places of Worship Act enforces our unchangeable duty to uphold the Indian Constitution’s commitment to secularism. Therefore, the law is a legislative tool created to safeguard the secular aspects of Indian politics, which is one of the fundamental tenets of the Constitution.
The apex court also reiterated the principle of Non- Retrogression, which is a foundational feature of our constitutional principle of which secularism is core component. The court said that it is principle of our law that we would not try to correct the historical wrongs. The SC specifically mentions that the wrongs committed by Mughals and ancient kings cannot be corrected today by the court of law.
The duties of a secular state are inextricably linked to the Places of Worship Act. It demonstrates India’s dedication to religious equality. Above all, the Places of Worship Act affirms the grave responsibility placed on the State to uphold and defend the equality of all religions as a fundamental constitutional principle, a standard that is considered a fundamental aspect of the Constitution. The Places of Worship Act was passed with a specific goal in mind.
The nation’s history and future are both addressed by the law. As aware as we are of our past and the necessity for the country to face it, Independence marked a turning point in healing the scars of history. People cannot take the law into their own hands to right historical wrongs. Parliament has unambiguously commanded that history and its wrongs cannot be used as tools to oppress the present and the future in order to preserve the nature of places of public worship.
Is Ayodhya Exception Constitutionally Challenging The Right To Equality?
The petitioner who have challenged the constitutional validity of the places of worship act have made the argument that the exception to the devotees of lord Ram in ayodhya is basically violating the right to equality of devotees of lord Krishna in Mathura, though both are the incarnation of lord Vishnu, the creator.
This is the complicated legal matter ingrained in the constitution of India, the act itself, and the principle of equality under Article 14. Although the section 5 of The Places of Worship Act, 1991 seems to create differential treatment, it may not violate the right to equality because of the reasonable classification doctrine. The judiciary has upheld the unequal treatment if it satisfies two conditions i.e. intelligible differentia and rational nexus.
The Ayodhya dispute has unique features which makes it apart from other legal disputes like Mathura. It is not just a legal matter but a political boiling point involving centuries old claims and grievances. The matter’s root traced back to the demolition of Ram Mandir in 1528 and remains a central point for political and communal mobilization.
The most important point as to why ayodhya is exception in the act because when the act came into force the dispute was already been litigated and was a matter of intense public debate that’s why the government excluded it from the act as it was necessary to allow the unfinished legal process to reach a decision without subverting its legitimacy. And at that time no comparable legal matter was placed before the court.
The reasoning for the act and its exception is to preserve the doctrine of secularism and communal harmony. By making the exception of ayodhya the government tries to solve the most sensitive and contentious issue by preserving the broader goal of the act which is to prevent re-litigations of historical religious disputes. And if government make other exceptions like Mathura it will lead to domino effect and encourage other religious groups to file suits to correct historical wrongs.
Does the Act Exclude the Judicial Review?
Now the most important question that is placed before the court is whether the act bars the judicial review which is a basic feature of the constitution just like secularism.
Section 4(1) states that “it is hereby declared that the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day.”
Section 4(2) states that “If, on the commencement of this Act, any suit, appeal or other proceeding with respect to the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship, existing on the 15th day of August, 1947, is pending before any Court, tribunal or other authority, the same shall abate, and no suit, appeal or other proceeding with respect to any such matter shall lie on or after such commencement in any Court, tribunal or other authority.”
Although this provision bars the judicial review but acts as a valid element of judicial restraint. Article 32 and 226 of Indian constitution guarantees the power of judicial review, with Supreme Court and high court plays a central role in it. The doctrine of judicial review is basic feature of the constitution but it is not unlimited and must fall under the constitutional and legislative boundaries.
By excluding the judicial review the government at that time put the legitimate limitation for the larger public goal and to maintain communal harmony. This is a valid and compelling state interest that gives reason for excluding the judicial review. In Ayodhya judgement also the court wanted peace and harmony rather than justice that’s why they gave the judgement in favour of deity and gave double the size of land to opposite party. The court just “Buying peace to restore harmony”
When government drafted this act their main aim was to maintain the status of the places of worship and to stop the proxy litigation in future and the section 4 clearly barred the court from entertaining any type of individual suits that challenges the structure of any place of worship. The act reflects a deliberate legislative choice to promote peace and harmony and the court must uphold this statute as long as it does not infringe fundamental right.
Balancing constitutional ideas and social harmony
India is a multi-cultural and multi-religious country where history is complicated issue. The recent trend of challenging the constitutional validity of places of worship is not only challenging the secular nature of the state but also creating a tension of communal riots in a country. The Places of worship act was made as a legislative tool to uphold the principle of secularism and communal harmony by maintaining the status quo of religious places as they stood on 15 August 1947. However, the question put up before the Supreme Court bringing the communal past into the present.
By answering these questions, the court must strike a fine balance. It makes sure that Act’s provisions uphold secularism and social harmony without supressing legitimate grievances or refusing justice where warranted. The interpretation of the act’s validity will have deep implication for India’s diverse culture, acknowledging judiciary’s role as a custodian of constitutional values.
Author: Ansh Pandey and Aakarsh Chaudhary, 2nd Year student at School of law, Bennett University, Greater Noida
