Challenges to the Places of Worship Act: What law says, why SC will examine it

What is the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991?

The law was “to prohibit 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 day of August, 1947.”

It says no person can convert any place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination, both within a religion or between two religions. This Act came against the backdrop of the Ramjanmabhoomi movement in the late 1980s, led by groups like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), who demanded the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya at the site of the 16th-century Babri Masjid. This led to a strong movement and several court petitions, and eventually the demolition of the mosque by supporters of the movement in 1992.

Communal riots followed in many Indian cities, sparking concern among the PV Narasimha Rao-led Congress government about future movements and litigations on similar lines. Therefore, the 1991 Act was passed. The SC ruled in favour of the Hindu party in 2019 in the Ayodhya case but said as the case had not been decided back then, the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 “was an egregious violation of the rule of law” and of the order for maintaining status quo.

So can no conversion of a place of worship be challenged in court?

No, there are a few exceptions.

Section 4(2) says any suit or legal proceeding with respect to the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship existing on August 15, 1947, pending before any court, shall abate — and no fresh suit or legal proceedings shall be instituted. But the proviso to this subsection saves suits, appeals and legal proceedings that are pending on the date of commencement of the Act if the conversion of the religious character of a place of worship took place after the cut-off date. Section 5 also states the Act shall not apply to the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, and to any suit, appeal or proceeding relating to it.

In the 2019 Ayodhya judgement, the Constitution Bench led by former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi referred to the law and said it manifests the secular values of the Constitution and strictly prohibits retrogression.

“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 State, has by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalized its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution,” the court said.

Why is the law being challenged now?

The law has been challenged on the ground that it bars judicial review, which is a basic feature of the Constitution, imposes an “arbitrary irrational retrospective cutoff date” and abridges the right to religion of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs.

While Upadhyay’s petition is regarding these issues, Swamy’s petition is about introducing exceptions. He said that like the Ayodhya Ram temple dispute, the matters pertaining to alleged disputed sites at Kashi and Mathura be kept out of the purview. “I am not asking for the quashing of the Act. But two temples be added and the Act can stand as it is,” he has been reported as saying by news agency PTI.

When the matter came up, Bar and Bench reported, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta told the SC the central government can take a stand on the challenge to the Act only after consultation with higher echelons of the government. The SG, therefore, asked the apex court to list the case in the first week of December.