Places of Worship Act, 1991 Introduction

• The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, has been thrust into the national spotlight once again due to legal battles surrounding religious sites like the Ram Janmabhoomi and recent disputes over the Sambhal and Ajmer Sharif shrines.
•  Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, recently blocked new petitions challenging the Act, allowing only intervention petitions with new legal grounds. 
• As legal challenges continue to mount, it’s essential to understand the background, objectives, provisions, and the ongoing debates regarding the Act’s impact on India’s religious landscape and secular fabric.

Background of the Places of Worship Act, 1991

• The Act was introduced amidst a surge of religious disputes, primarily stemming from the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi conflict.
•  In the early 1990s, various Hindu groups, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, challenged the status of other religious sites such as the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura. 
• To curb rising communal tensions and prevent the misuse of religious sites for political purposes, the government of P.V. Narasimha Rao enacted the Places of Worship Act in September 1991.
• This law sought to preserve the religious character of all places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. The law, however, specifically excluded the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya due to ongoing litigation surrounding the matter.

Objective of the Places of Worship Act, 1991

• The primary objective of the Places of Worship Act is to prevent the conversion of any religious site and preserve its religious identity as it stood on August 15, 1947. 
• By doing so, it aimed to curb further disputes, mitigate communal tensions, and uphold India’s commitment to secularism. 
• The law ensures that the religious character of these sites is protected, preventing changes based on political, social, or legal pressures.

Key Provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991

• The Act incorporates several key provisions that directly address the preservation of religious sites and limit disputes over their religious character:
• Prohibition of Conversion (Section 3): This provision prevents the conversion of any religious site from one denomination to another. It prohibits both partial and complete conversion, ensuring that the religious identity of these sites remains unchanged.
• Maintenance of Religious Character (Section 4(1)): The religious identity of any place of worship must remain exactly as it was on August 15, 1947. The Act effectively freezes the status of religious sites as they stood on this date, making alterations or changes to their religious character illegal.
• Abatement of Pending Cases (Section 4(2)): All legal cases relating to the conversion of religious sites before August 15, 1947, are to be terminated, with no new cases allowed. This provision ensures that disputes over the religious character of these sites do not continue indefinitely.
• Exceptions to the Act (Section 5): The Act does not apply to:
  • Ancient monuments, archaeological sites, and remains protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
  • Sites where disputes were already resolved, or conversions occurred before the Act was enacted.
  • The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site, which is exempt from the law due to ongoing legal proceedings.
• Penalties (Section 6): Violating the provisions of the Act results in penalties, including imprisonment for up to three years and fines. This serves as a deterrent to prevent the alteration of religious sites.

Arguments Against the Places of Worship Act, 1991

• Unconstitutional Limitations: Critics argue that by barring judicial review, the Act violates Article 13(2) of the Constitution, which protects the right to legal remedies.
• Violation of Rule of Law: The principle of ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy) is undermined, challenging the fundamental concept of justice. For instance, communities seeking legal restitution for encroachment on sites such as the Shahi Idgah in Mathura feel disenfranchised by the lack of judicial recourse. This restriction is seen as contrary to Article 14, which ensures equality before the law and the right to seek justice. 
• Arbitrary Cutoff Date: Many question the rationale of using August 15, 1947, as the cutoff, arguing that it cements colonial-era decisions and prevents redressal of historical wrongs. For example, critics highlight how the Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Mosque issue cannot be addressed because the Act cements the religious status determined under colonial rule. 
• Secularism Concerns: The Act is accused of conflicting with secularism by disallowing communities from reclaiming religious sites that were taken during historical invasions. Examples include sites like Somnath, which underwent restoration before 1947, and calls to reclaim other places of worship seen as symbols of cultural erasure. Critics argue that the Act disproportionately impacts these groups while benefiting others, thereby questioning the law’s neutrality. 
• Infringement on Religious Freedom: Critics claim the Act limits the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26, which ensure freedom of faith, worship, and religious practice.

Significance of the Places of Worship Act, 1991

• Promotion of Communal Harmony: By prohibiting the conversion or alteration of religious sites, the Act aims to reduce tensions and promote peaceful coexistence among India’s diverse religious communities.
• Promotion of Secularism: The Act strengthens India’s commitment to secularism by ensuring that disputes over religious sites do not lead to communal polarization or undermine the principle of religious equality.
• Deterrence Against Misuse: By criminalizing the alteration of religious sites, the Act discourages attempts to manipulate religious sentiments for political or social gain, ensuring that such issues do not spark communal unrest.
• Preservation of Religious Status Quo: The Act ensures that the religious character of all places of worship is preserved as it was on August 15, 1947, providing stability and continuity in religious practices. This prevents future legal claims or disputes over religious sites.

Implications of Legal Challenges to the Places of Worship Act

• Threat to Secularism: Weakening the Act risks destabilizing India’s secular ethos and undermines the principle of equal treatment for all religions.
• Political Exploitation: Disputes surrounding the Act are often weaponized for political narratives, influencing public discourse and electoral strategies. For example, demands to reclaim certain sites have been used to consolidate specific voter bases during elections, as seen in the 2017 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections, where calls for reclaiming Mathura and Varanasi were prominent in political campaigns. Such exploitation risks shifting public discourse from development and governance to identity-based politics, polarizing communities. 
• Historical Reinterpretation: Revisiting disputes over religious sites could lead to conflicting historical narratives, affecting cultural heritage and collective memory. For instance, debates about the origins of religious structures like the Idgah Mosque in Bijapur or other lesser-known disputes risk rewriting localized histories, fostering divisions among communities that have coexisted for generations.
• Communal Tensions: Legal challenges and petitions, such as those seen in the Sambhal violence, risk eroding public trust and fueling unrest.
• Public Trust and Harmony: Legal challenges to the Act threaten to disrupt public trust and could potentially lead to communal tension. The legal battles over religious sites have the potential to escalate conflicts, leading to a breakdown in social harmony.

Way Forward

• Comprehensive Evaluation by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court should conduct a thorough evaluation of the Act, considering its criticisms and addressing any gaps or limitations. This will help ensure that the Act serves its original purpose without undermining constitutional rights.
• Safeguarding Judicial Review: It is essential to preserve the judiciary’s power to review cases related to religious sites. Judicial review is vital for upholding constitutional rights and ensuring that justice is accessible to all citizens.
• Maintaining Balance: The Act must strike a balance between preserving the religious identity of places of worship and respecting the rights of diverse communities. A fair and equitable approach should be adopted.
• Promotion of Fairness and Consistency: The law should be implemented consistently and transparently, with a fair process of public consultation. The government should consider revisiting exceptions to ensure that the Act is applied without bias.