The basics of Places of Worship Act and challenges it faces

The Places of Worship Act has been challenged on various grounds. (Source: PTI/File)

The Ayodhya Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid land dispute was one of the fiercest legal battles in independent India. It was with the two instances of firing (October-November 1990) by the UP police on ‘karsevaks’ (who allegedly tried to demolish Babri Masjid) that communal tensions flared up, forcing the union government led by Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao to enact ‘The Places of Worship Act, 1991’.

The Act was enacted with the main objective of prohibiting conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th August 1947.

What the Act says 

Section 3 of the Act states: No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof.

The Act also provides an exception to any place of worship which is an ancient and historical monument or an archaeological site or remains covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Section 5 of the Act exempted the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute from its application.

Contesting views of the Bill in Parliament

Then Home Minister S B Chavan who introduced the bill in Lok Sabha in 1991 while outlining the intent behind the Act had said, “It is considered necessary to adopt these measures in view of the controversies arising from time to time with regard to conversion of places of worship, which tend to vitiate the communal atmosphere. I am sure that enactment of this Bill will go a long way in helping restore communal amity and goodwill.”

During the debate over the Act, BJP leader Uma Bharti said: “Can we alter historical facts through manipulation of dates? Are we scared to face history?"

It’s through the tussle between ensuring "communal harmony" and correcting “historical wrongs” that the Act has been scrutinised in the last three decades.

Supreme Court’s position in 2019 on the Places of Worship Act 

The Supreme Court had made certain observations related to the Places of Worship Act in the Ram Janmabhoomi judgment. "In providing a guarantee for the preservation of the religious character of places of public worship as they existed on 15 August 1947 and against the conversion of places of public worship, Parliament determined that independence from colonial rule furnishes a constitutional basis for healing the injustices of the past by providing the confidence to every religious community that their places of worship will be preserved and that their character will not be altered", the court said.

It added, “The Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution. The law is hence a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution.”

What happened in 2021 in the Gyanvapi case

In April 2021 the Gyanvapi Mosque was subjected to historical and archaeological scrutiny with the Court of Civil Judge in Varanasi directing the Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a “comprehensive physical survey” of the Kashi Vishwanath Gyanvapi Mosque complex with “prime purpose” of finding out “as to whether the religious structure standing at present at the disputed site is a superimposition, alteration or addition or there is structural overlapping of any kind, with or over, any other religious structure.”

The same month the Supreme Court admitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act,1991.

In September 2021 Allahabad High Court stayed the Civil Court order.

Round 2 in 2022 in the Gyanvapi issue

Gyanvapi, however, came under judicial scrutiny again when on April 8, 2022, a Civil Judge ordered a survey of the Mosque on a petition filed by five Hindu women asking for year-long access to pray at a Hindu shrine behind the western wall of the complex.

The order was challenged in the Allahabad High Court but it refused to stay the Civil Court order.

Following this, the Masjid committee challenged the Allahabad High Court's decision of not staying the Varanasi court order in the Supreme Court and the main plea taken by the Masjid committee was that the order was violative of the Places of Worship Act and previous judgments of the apex court.

Former CJI Chandrachud's interpretation 

However, in May 2022 former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, who was then a judge of the Supreme Court, made some observations during the hearing of the Gyanvapi case which paved the way to interpret The Places of Worship Act in a new light.

The court was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masjid (which manages Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi) challenging the District Court order. The Court had appointed a commissioner for surveying the mosque which was upheld by the Allahabad High Court also.

It was during the hearing of the SLP that Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Masjid committee argued that orders passed by the trial court are repugnant to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.

He said, “The prayer in the suit is to change of religious character...Under Section 3 there is an absolute bar on religious character of a place of worship and there is no exception to this. Why did you appoint a Commission? To find out if there are deities etc.”

Responding to this argument, Justice Chandrachud said, "The ascertainment of religious character is not barred under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act."

Sambhal Masjid Case

In November 2024, Advocate Hari Shankar Jain along with seven other persons filed a petition in the Chandausi Court (Sambhal, UP) arguing that the Shahi Jama Masjid at Chandausi was constructed by Babur after demolishing a Hindu temple on the site.

The petition was allowed the same day and the Court appointed Advocate Ramesh Raghav to conduct a survey of the mosque and submit a report by November 29. When the survey team reached the Mosque a communal clash erupted which led to the killing of four persons, once again igniting the debate about whether such suits can be allowed in the presence of the Places of Worship Act.

The Places of Worship Act has been challenged on various grounds. Now, with numerous instances of cases being filed in courts, the question remains whether the Act will remain a roadblock in filing and entertaining such suits or whether the judicial interpretations as made by former CJI Chandrachud will lead to its dilution.