Recent events in Delhi, Varanasi, Mathura, and the Supreme Court have put the protective grip of The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 to the test.
The Act prohibits the conversion of places of worship and ensures that their religious character is preserved as it was on August 15, 1947.
Places of Worship Act speaks to our history and the nation’s future
Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that “history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and future” in preserving the character of places of public worship.
In dismissing a suit to “restore” alleged Hindu and Jain temples inside the Qutb Minar complex, a Delhi Civil Judge quoted these exact observations from the Ayodhya verdict. “Every effort should be made to enforce The Places of Worship Act’s goal… Our country has a long history and has faced many challenges. Nonetheless, history must be accepted in its entirety. In November 2021, the civil court asked, “Can the good be kept and the bad be erased from our history?” The appeals filed against this order were reserved for decision by an Additional District Court on Thursday.
The court’s “considered opinion”
The Mathura High Court held on May 19 that the 1991 Act did not preclude a suit challenging the “fraudulent” compromise between the Sri Krishna Janmsthan Sewa Sangh and the Trust Masjid Idgah.
In a series of orders, a Varanasi civil court established an advocate commission to conduct a videographic survey of the Gyanvapi mosque grounds. It later ordered the sealing of a portion of the site, even before the commission filed its report after Hindu plaintiffs claimed a‘shivling’ was discovered during the survey.
The caretakers of the Gyanvapi mosque, Anjuman Intejamia Masjid, urged the Supreme Court to “nip in the bud” the Varanasi court’s “null and void” orders, lest they “fester.” The commission was “appointed to see if there were any deities there, any symbols relating to another religion… and this is exactly what the 1991 Act prohibits,” they claimed. For the caretakers, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi argued that “there is no dispute as to the existence of this property for a period of 500 years and the religious character of the mosque… This religious character must be preserved; otherwise, the Act’s object and the Places of Worship Act will become a dead letter.”
However, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who presided over the Bench, stated orally that “ascertainment of a place’s religious character is not barred by the Act.” The appointment of the commission was described by the Supreme Court as a “procedural mechanism” for determining the “religious character of the place.” The Bench noted that religious sites in India often have a “hybrid character.” While transferring the case to the District Judge, it reiterated an earlier order to secure the area where the shivling was reportedly discovered and allow Muslims to offer namaaz at the Gyanvapi mosque.
‘Hybrid personality’
Within days of the Supreme Court’s oral comments on religious places’ “hybrid character,” advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who is challenging the 1991 Act (Places of Worship act) separately, moved the Supreme Court to impeach himself in the Gyanvapi case. He claimed that demolishing a temple’s roof, walls, pillars, foundation, and even subsequent namaz offerings did not alter the character of the land where the temple once stood.
He claims that a mosque built on temple land cannot be a mosque, not only because such construction is prohibited by Islamic law, but also because the property once vested in the deity remains the deity’s property. “However long illegal encroachment on such property continues, the right of the deity and devotees is never lost,” he claimed.
He claimed that the right to restore religious property was “unrestricted.” He is seeking a judicial remedy for what he calls a “persistent wrong.”