Decoding Places of Worship Act 1991:The mischief Behind the Smoke Screen is to undermine Secularism

Jan 01, 2025
By S. Farman Ahmad Naqvi, Senior Advocate, High Court, Allahabad

The Act stipulates that the religious character of places of worship as they existed on 15th August 1947, must be preserved, and prohibits any changes to the religious identity of such places. The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, aims to preserve the religious status of places of worship, preventing conversions between different religious denominations or within the same denomination.  

The Act seeks to maintain communal harmony by freezing the religious character of these places and preventing disputes over such conversions.  

While introducing the bill in parliament, then home minister SB Chavan expressed anxiety about “an alarming rise of intolerance propagated by certain sections for their narrow vested interests”. These groups, he said, were resorting to “forcible conversion” of places of worship in an attempt to create new disputes.

Certain relevant provisions of Places of Worship Act 1991- 

  1. Section 3: Prohibits the conversion of any place of worship, either in full or in part, from one religious denomination to another.  
  2. Section 4(1): Mandates that the religious identity of a place of worship must remain unchanged from its status on 15th August 1947. Any attempt to alter the religious character is prohibited. 
  3. Section 4(2): Terminates all ongoing legal proceedings concerning the conversion of a place of worship’s religious character prior to 15th August 1947, and prevents the initiation of new cases challenging the religious status of such places. 
  4. Section 5: The specific dispute at Ayodhya (Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi), was exempted from the purview of the Act. 
  5. Besides the Ayodhya dispute, the Act also exempted, ‘Any place of worship which is an ancient and historical monument, or an archaeological site covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.’ The exemption of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid from the Act has raised concerns about inconsistency and the potential for selective legal treatment of certain disputes. 
  6. Cases that have already been resolved or settled by mutual agreement were also exempted 
  7. Conversions that occurred before the Act’s commencement were also exempted. 
  8. Section 6 relates to penalties: The Act establishes strict penalties for violations, including imprisonment of up to three years and fines for attempting to change the religious character of a place of worship. 

In May 2022, the Supreme Court noted that inquiries can be allowed into the religious character of places of worship, as long as such inquiries don’t lead to a change in the religious character.  

There are reservations and apprehensions over the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

  1. Constitutional validity of the Act has been challenged on the ground of limiting judicial review, potentially undermining the role of the judiciary in resolving disputes. 
  2. The Act’s retrospective cutoff date of 15th August 1947 has been criticized as arbitrary and irrational, potentially infringing upon the rights of certain religious communities. 
  3. Multiple petitions have been filed against the Act, with petitioners arguing that it prevents Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs from reclaiming places of worship they believe were “invaded” or “encroached upon” by rulers is violative of their rights. 

The Supreme Court on 12th December 2024  barred civil courts across the country from registering fresh suits challenging the ownership and title of any place of worship or ordering surveys of disputed religious places until further orders, and made it clear that no “effective” orders can be passed. Hearing batch of six petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, a three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna alongwith Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan said, ‘As the matter is sub judice before this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that, though fresh suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and no proceedings shall be undertaken therein till further orders of this Court. Further, in the pending suits, no Court will pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders directing surveys, etc. till the next date of hearing/further orders of this Court.’

The court will hear the matter next on February 17, 2025.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO TO QUELL THE SPREAD OF THIS VIRUS

The legal and social debates surrounding the Act are often tangled with provocative communal issues.  Critics argue that challenges to the Act may worsen communal tensions, particularly when it comes to sensitive sites like mosques, temples, and churches. The Act was intended to protect India’s secular nature by preserving religious harmony, but its critics believe that it may inadvertently allow for the suppression of certain religious communities’ claims to historical sites, thus undermining the secular fabric of the nation.  The Act is often invoked in political and religious debates, leading to concerns that religious issues could be used to stoke division or mobilize support for political causes. Some of the ongoing disputes have led to social unrest, with protests and communal tensions erupting over religious site claims, reflecting the deep societal divide over such issues. 

With varying interpretations of the Act’s provisions, there is a pressing need for the Supreme Court to provide clear and definitive guidelines on the applicability of the Places of Worship Act. Local court interventions in sensitive religious matters call for a closer examination of the jurisdictional limits of lower courts. 

The recent history of how lower  courts have responded to the Places of Worship Act, underscores the need for a final determination by the Supreme Court. 

Few weeks ago, a court in Rajasthan issued notices to the government after admitting a petition claiming that the revered Ajmer Sharif dargah – a 13th-Century Sufi shrine that attracts thousands of visitors every day stood over a Hindu temple.

Last month, five people were killed in Sambhal town in Uttar Pradesh state when violence broke out during a court-ordered survey of a 16th-Century mosque. Muslim groups have contested the survey in the Supreme Court.

There have been tensions over other court-ordered surveys earlier, including in the case of the Gyanvapi mosque. Hindu groups said the 17th-Century mosque was built by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb on the partial ruins of the Kashi Vishwanath temple. Muslim groups opposed the survey ordered by a local court, saying it violated the 1991 law.But in 2022, a Supreme Court bench headed by then chief justice DY Chandrachud did not stop the survey from going ahead. He also observed that the 1991 law did not prevent investigations into the status of a place of worship as of 15 August 1947, as long as it did not seek to alter it.

So many have criticized this phenomenon since then, with former civil servant Harsh Mander saying that it “opened the floodgates for this series of orders by courts that run contrary to the 1991 law. If you allow the survey of a mosque to determine if a temple lay below it, but then prohibit actions to restore a temple at that site, this is a surefire recipe for fostering resentment, hate and fear that could detonate for years in bitter feuds between people of diverse faiths,” Mr Mander wrote, “As long as Indian courts are allowed to defy the spirit of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, bloodshed will follow the reopening of the wounds of history.”