The Places of Worship Act, as a legislative instrument, must evolve to meet the challenges of the present while honouring the historical tapestry
The recent green-lighting of a survey of the Shahi Eidgah in Mathura by the Allahabad High Court has re-ignited a longstanding debate over the Places of Worship Act 1991. Amid escalating disputes mirroring the complexities seen in the Varanasi Gyanvapi case, the focus shifts to the legal framework designed to maintain the religious status quo – the Places of Worship Act.
This trend is not limited only to Varanasi and Mathura. Hindu organizations also filed petitions demanding they should be allowed to offer prayers at Quwwatul Islam mosque in the Qutub Minar premises in New Delhi, while another Hindu organization claimed the Taj Mahal as the Tajo Mahal temple of Lord Shiva and asked for the court’s permission to offer prayers there.
This was visible in Soth too, Vishwa Hindu Parishad volunteers demanded they should be allowed to offer prayers on the outskirts of Mangaluru after a Hindu temple-like architectural design was purportedly found there underneath the Juma Masjid on April 21, 2022. The VHP claimed that the mosque was built atop Sri Ramanjaneya Bhajana Mandira. Prohibitory orders were imposed in the city after Hindu organizations said they would organize 'Tambula Prashne' at Sri Ramanjaneya Bhajana Mandira.
The legal battle is the latest instance of a growing phenomenon in which Hindu groups petitioning courts demanding land where mosques are located by claiming these belong to Hindus. These petitions question the Places of Worship Act putting the Government and Judiciary in a tight spot.
Enacted against the backdrop of the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement, the Act has played a crucial role in preserving religious harmony in the country. However, the recent surge in disputes, notably in Mathura and Varanasi, raises pertinent questions about the efficacy and current validity of this legislative measure.
The Places of Worship Act passed in 1991, emerged from the turbulent period leading up to its enactment, marked by fervent communal tensions, notably centred around the Ayodhya dispute. The legislation was conceived as a pivotal step towards preventing similar fractious litigations and safeguarding the social fabric of the nation.
The core principle of the Places of Worship Act is to freeze the religious status of all places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. The Act categorically exempts the Ayodhya dispute, acknowledging its unique historical and emotional significance. The explicit intent was to prevent litigation that could potentially disturb the communal equilibrium.
Recent legal battles in Mathura and Varanasi have seen litigants invoking the 1991 Act, emphasizing its role in protecting the sanctity of religious places. In the Mathura case, Hindu groups claim that the Shahi Eidgah was constructed on land belonging to the Sri Krishna Janambhoomi Trust, demanding the removal of the mosque and the return of the land to the Trust. The Varanasi dispute, on the other hand, revolves around claims by Hindu groups regarding the Gyanvapi mosque.
The efficacy of the Places of Worship Act is now under scrutiny as disputes continue to emerge, challenging the very essence of the legislation. One key challenge lies in the interpretation and application of the freeze date – August 15, 1947. Critics argue that freezing the religious character of places of worship at a specific historical moment may not account for the evolving social fabric and religious demographics of the nation over time.
Moreover, the Act faces criticism for its seeming inability to address disputes arising from historical grievances, such as the alleged demolition of temples during medieval times. The Mathura case, where petitioners claim that the Katra Keshav Dev Temple was demolished by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, brings this historical dimension to the forefront.
The Allahabad High Court's decision to allow a survey of the Shahi Eidgah in Mathura has opened a Pandora's Box, potentially setting a precedent for similar disputes across the country. The survey, akin to the one ordered for the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, aims to verify claims made by Hindutva groups regarding the historical positioning of these places of worship.
In both instances, the survey results have the potential to reshape the narrative, either affirming the claims of the Hindu groups or challenging them. The complex intertwining of historical accounts, archaeological evidence, and religious sentiments underscores the gravity of these disputes.
The Legal Labyrinth: Pending Proceedings and Confusion
Amidst the evolving legal landscape, a multitude of cases and petitions in various courts further complicate the scenario. Eighteen separate pleas in Mathura alone seek full ownership of the disputed 13.37-acre land by the temple management. The consolidation of these pleas by the high court adds a layer of complexity to an already convoluted legal web.
Complicating matters further is the reluctance of the Union Government to clearly articulate its stance on the Places of Worship Act. The ongoing ambiguity raises concerns about the government's commitment to either uphold, review or scrap the legislation. The lack of a definitive position exacerbates the confusion surrounding the legal framework and its applicability in present times.
In this undesirable situation, the onus is on the government to provide clarity on its position regarding the Places of Worship Act. The Supreme Court, being the ultimate arbiter, must expedite proceedings on the validity and interpretation of the Act in the context of evolving disputes.
The potential consequences of leaving these issues unaddressed are far-reaching. Without a swift resolution, the legal ambiguity surrounding the Places of Worship Act could lead to the reemergence of similar disputes, perpetuating communal tensions and compromising the very fabric of our social harmony.
The government's hesitancy to take a decisive stand and the prolonged proceedings before the top court contribute to a sense of uncertainty. A proactive approach, both from the government and the judiciary, is imperative to prevent further deterioration of the situation.
As the legal quagmire unfolds, striking a delicate balance between historical grievances and the imperative of maintaining communal harmony becomes paramount. The Places of Worship Act, while a well-intentioned measure to prevent communal discord, needs careful reevaluation to address contemporary challenges and ensure its continued relevance in a dynamically evolving society. The nation awaits a judicious resolution that upholds the principles of justice, fairness, and social cohesion.
In the labyrinth of legal complexities, it is essential to recognize that the preservation of religious harmony and historical justice need not be mutually exclusive. A nuanced and inclusive approach is required to navigate these intricate contours, acknowledging the diverse tapestry of India's cultural and religious heritage. The Places of Worship Act, as a legislative instrument, must evolve to meet the challenges of the present while honouring the historical tapestry that defines our nation. Only through a harmonious blend of legal clarity, historical understanding, and a commitment to social cohesion can we ensure a future where our places of worship stand as symbols of unity rather than sources of division.
(Writer is Political Editor, The Pioneer, Lucknow edition; views are personal)
