The Supreme Court has recently turned its attention to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This Act is currently being challenged, as it safeguards the religious status quo of worship places dating back to India’s independence in August 1947. The Court’s decision to review this Act could potentially result in numerous legal proceedings regarding religious sites across the country.
Understanding the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
This specific act intends to uphold the “religious character” of all places of worship, as they were in 1947, with the exception of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which was already a matter before the courts. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the conversion of a religious site, or even part of one, into a place of worship for a different religious group.
Section 4(2) of the Act dictates that all suits or appeals concerning the change of religious character of a place of worship, which were ongoing on 15th August 1947, be terminated with the establishment of this Act. New proceedings cannot be initiated, except if the status change occurred after the mentioned date.
The Act places an affirmative duty on the State to preserve the religious nature of every place of worship, as it stood at the time of Independence. This requirement is integral to the secular character of India and aligns with the principles of the Indian Constitution.
Exemptions in the Act
The disputed site at Ayodhya has been exempted from this Act, enabling the trial in the Ayodhya case to progress even after the law’s enforcement. Additional exemptions include ancient and historical monuments, archaeological sites, any issue that has been conclusively settled or disposed of, and any disputes settled through mutual agreement before the Act was implemented.
Penalties for Violation
The Act’s Section 6 imposes a maximum of three years imprisonment and a fine for contravening the Act’s provisions.
Supreme Court’s Stand and Petition Arguments
The Supreme Court, in its 2019 Ayodhya verdict, referred to the Act as reflecting the secular values of the Constitution and strongly forbidding retrogression. The Act has been argued to be in conflict with secularism, with critics asserting that the 15th August 1947 cut-off date is “arbitrary, irrational and retrospective”. These critics maintain that it prevents Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs from seeking legal resolution to reclaim their places of worship that they perceive to have been invaded and encroached upon.
It is further argued that the Centre does not possess the power to enact laws on “pilgrimages” or “burial grounds” which is within the state list. However, the government has countered this by arguing its ability to employ its residual power under Entry 97 of the Union List to implement this law. This Entry confers additional powers on the Centre to legislate on subjects not specified in any of the three lists.
