Supreme Court Bars Fresh Suits on Religious Ownership

The Supreme Court of India has recently imposed restriction on civil courts. On December 12, 2024, it barred the registration of new suits that challenge the ownership and title of any place of worship across the country. This ruling extends to preventing surveys of disputed religious sites until further notice. The Bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, also stated that pending suits should not result in any effective interim or final orders, including surveys, until the next hearing.

Background of the Places of Worship Act

The Places of Worship Act was enacted in 1991. It aims to maintain the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. This law was introduced to prevent communal tensions and disputes regarding religious sites. However, recent court rulings have sparked renewed interest in the historical claims surrounding various mosques and temples.

Key Cases Affected by the Ruling

Several prominent cases involving mosque-temple disputes are currently pending. These include the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, where a suit claims it was built over a temple, and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura, which has faced challenges to its coexistence with a proposed temple. Other notable cases include Teele Wali Masjid in Lucknow and Shamsi Jama Masjid in Budaun, where similar claims of historical ownership are being contested.

Judicial Responses to Survey Requests

The Supreme Court’s decision follows a series of lower court rulings that have allowed surveys of contested religious sites. The Gyanvapi case has been particularly influential, leading to multiple petitions seeking to ascertain the religious character of various mosques. The courts have often been asked to determine whether these sites were originally temples before being converted into mosques.

Impact on Communal Relations

The recent surge in petitions and court orders has raised concerns about communal harmony. Incidents of violence have been reported in areas where surveys have been conducted or ordered. The court’s decision aims to prevent further escalation of tensions by halting new suits and surveys.

Public and Political Reactions

The ruling has prompted varied reactions from different sections of society. Some view it as a necessary step to maintain peace, while others argue it undermines historical claims and religious sentiments. Retired bureaucrats and military personnel have expressed concerns about what they perceive as an ideological assault on India’s civilisational heritage.

Future Implications

The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to have long-lasting effects on the legal landscape surrounding religious sites in India. It may deter future claims and surveys, preserving the status quo of places of worship. However, the ongoing legal battles indicate that the issue remains contentious and unresolved.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the implications of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 on contemporary religious disputes in India.
2. What are the historical claims surrounding the Gyanvapi Mosque? How do they reflect broader societal tensions?
3. Estimate the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on communal harmony in India.
4. Point out the significance of the Supreme Court’s intervention in pending religious disputes and its potential influence on future cases.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically analyse the implications of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 on contemporary religious disputes in India.

1. The Act aims to maintain the religious status of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, preventing communal disputes.
2. It prohibits changing the religious character of any place of worship, which helps in reducing tensions but faces challenges in courts.
3. Recent judicial interpretations have led to petitions questioning the Act’s provisions, indicating a resurgence of historical claims.
4. The Act has been criticized for being ineffective in preventing disputes, as seen in the ongoing cases like Gyanvapi and Shahi Idgah.
5. Overall, the Act’s implications are complex, balancing the intent to preserve communal harmony against rising historical grievances.

2. What are the historical claims surrounding the Gyanvapi Mosque? How do they reflect broader societal tensions?

1. The Gyanvapi Mosque is claimed to be built over the ruins of the Kashi Vishwanath temple, with historical petitions dating back to 1991.
2. Recent claims include demands for worship rights inside the mosque, denoting competing religious narratives.
3. The mosque’s status has become a flashpoint in Hindu-Muslim relations, reflecting deeper societal divisions and historical grievances.
4. Judicial proceedings have reignited communal tensions, with incidents of violence reported during surveys and hearings.
5. The case symbolizes ongoing struggles over religious identity and heritage in contemporary India, impacting communal harmony.

3. Estimate the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on communal harmony in India.

1. The ruling halts new suits and surveys, potentially reducing immediate tensions and violence surrounding religious disputes.
2. By preventing further escalation, it aims to maintain the status quo and protect communal harmony in sensitive areas.
3. However, it may also frustrate groups seeking to assert historical claims, leading to increased polarization and unrest.
4. The decision reflects a balancing act between legal principles and the need for social stability in a diverse society.
5. Ultimately, the ruling’s impact will depend on how it influences ongoing disputes and societal responses in the long term.

4. Point out the significance of the Supreme Court’s intervention in pending religious disputes and its potential influence on future cases.

1. The Supreme Court’s intervention signals a recognition of the sensitive nature of religious disputes in India.
2. It sets a precedent for how similar cases will be handled in the future, potentially limiting lower courts’ authority in contentious matters.
3. The ruling may deter frivolous petitions and surveys, aiming to preserve communal peace and legal stability.
4. It emphasizes the importance of judicial restraint in cases involving historical and religious sensitivities.
5. Future cases may be influenced by this ruling, as it establishes a framework for addressing disputes without exacerbating tensions.