Places of Worship Act: How SC undid what then CJI Chandrachud allowed

 

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, was enacted to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947, and prevent disputes over historical changes to such sites. The Act, with the exception of the Ayodhya dispute, prohibits altering or converting the religious character of any place of worship.

In recent developments, the Supreme Court (SC) has allowed certain surveys and inquiries that seem to reinterpret the Act’s boundaries. Notably, during the tenure of then-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, oral observations in 2022 suggested that the Act does not bar inquiries into the "religious character" of a place as long as it doesn't aim to change its nature. This interpretation was cited in cases like the Gyanvapi Mosque issue, where the SC allowed non-invasive surveys to ascertain the historical religious identity of disputed structures

Critics argue that this stance dilutes the Act’s intention of avoiding historical disputes and preserving communal harmony. Former observations by the SC, such as in the 2019 Ayodhya judgment, upheld the Act as a key measure to protect India's secular fabric. However, recent rulings have opened a "Pandora's box," leading to increased litigation over historical religious claims.

This shift underscores a complex legal and societal debate about balancing historical inquiry with communal peace and the secular principles of the Constitution.

 

The Supreme Court of India is revisiting the contentious Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which mandates maintaining the religious character of places of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and prohibits their conversion. This Act has been challenged in recent years on various constitutional grounds.

Key developments include:

1. Challenges to the Act's Validity: Several petitions, including those by BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and others, argue that the Act violates constitutional rights by barring legal remedies for historical grievances related to religious conversions. Petitioners claim it undermines secularism and restricts religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution
2. Enforcement vs. Misuse: The Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and mosque committees like those for the Gyanvapi Mosque argue in favor of the Act, stressing its role in maintaining communal harmony. They have sought the Supreme Court’s intervention against surveys or legal actions allegedly misusing the Act.
3. Controversial Surveys and Tensions: Disputes such as the Gyanvapi Mosque case in Varanasi and the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal have heightened tensions. Courts permitting surveys of these sites, often initiated by Hindu groups claiming historical temples underneath, have led to legal and social conflicts
4. Supreme Court's Role: A special three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna is hearing these cases. The court is considering multiple petitions challenging the Act, consolidating them for a joint hearing

These cases highlight the broader debate over balancing historical grievances with present-day communal harmony and constitutional rights. The Supreme Court's decision could have significant legal and societal implications across India.