From the Urdu Press: ‘Places of Worship Act a dam on flood of communalism’, ‘Nehru cannot be blamed for every problem now’

Hailing the Supreme Court’s order barring civil courts across India from registering fresh suits challenging the ownership and title of any place of worship, and from ordering surveys of disputed religious places until further orders, the Mumbai-based Urdu Times, in its December 14 editorial, points out that multiple petitions in different courts have been filed seeking Hindu rights over Muslim mosques or sites while claiming that they had been built on Hindu temples. These suits, the editorial notes, have been pending against Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura, Teele Wali Masjid in Lucknow, Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Shamsi Jama Masjid in Badaun, Atala mosque in Jaunpur, Kamal Maula mosque in Dhar, Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque in Qutub Minar and Juma Masjid in Mangalore, among others.

“Hearing the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, the apex court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has passed this crucial order, which has given immense relief to all peace-loving people of the country. It has also upheld the majesty of judiciary, which was dented by former CJI D Y Chandrachud in the Gyanvapi case,” the daily says. In May 2022, hearing a plea of the Gyanvapi mosque management committee challenging the survey there ordered by a Varanasi court, Justice Chandrachud, heading a three-judge Bench, had observed that the ascertainment of religious character of a place of worship would not violate the Places of Worship Act. “Justice Chandrachud has now sought to clarify that it was only an observation and cannot be regarded as a court verdict and that any discussion in the court has to be understood in the context of a dialogue there,” the editorial states. However, the top court has now effectively stalled such suits seeking surveys of Muslim sites, whose stage was set by Chandrachud’s observation.

Questioning the petitioners challenging the Places of Worship Act — which prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of places of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, barring the Ayodhya dispute which was then sub-judice — the editorial asserts that the Act is crucial in the current situation. “This law acts like a dam on the flood of communalism. If it does not exist, there would be a deluge of cases against mosques and dargahs across India, vitiating the atmosphere to an unimaginable degree,” the edit says. “This law is the biggest instrument for ensuring peace and harmony in the country.”

INQUILAB

Flagging Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s alleged derogatory statements against the Muslim community, the New Delhi edition of Inquilab, in its December 12 editorial, says that Justice Yadav’s remarks violated the Constitution. Referring to his comment that “the country will run according to the wishes of the majority who live in Hindustan”, the editorial points out that our country runs as per our Constitution, which mandates that every citizen is equal regardless of religion, caste, gender, race or place of birth. “Former PM Manmohan Singh’s purported statement that the minorities must have the first claim on the country’s resources had triggered a row, although it was misinterpreted and taken out of context. How could Justice Yadav’s statement about the country operating as per the majority’s wishes, be acceptable now?”

The editorial notes that Justice Yadav made the remarks at an event organised by the VHP on the Allahabad High Court premises. “Should the judge have attended such a function? Taking note of his controversial speech, the Supreme Court has sought details from the high court,” it states, noting the Opposition’s proposal to impeach him. “It is difficult to predict the outcome of such moves, but it could be expected that in future judges would be more circumspect in making remarks in contravention of the constitutional values.”

The daily says that a judge has a right to have his individual opinion, but it could not override the constitutional principles and ethos. “The interest of our nation lies in following the Constitution. Every judge takes the oath that he will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. Did Justice Yadav forget his oath?” it asks, adding that if those mandated with dispensing justice do not uphold the Constitution, what will happen to the rule of law.

SIASAT

Commenting on the debate undertaken by Parliament on the “Glorious Journey of 75 Years of the Constitution of India”, the Hyderabad-based Siasat, in its leader on December 15, says that the members of both the Treasury and Opposition benches expressed conflicting views during the discussion. While the Opposition MPs attacked the Narendra Modi government for “undermining” the Constitution and democracy, the ruling BJP-led NDA hit back, strongly defending the government’s track record. In his reply to the debate in the Lok Sabha, Prime Minister Modi launched a scathing attack on the Nehru-Gandhi family, the editorial says. “Modi started off by targeting the country’s first PM Jawaharlal Nehru, accusing him of dealing the first blow on the Constitution by first amending it. He then charged Indira Gandhi with taking it to another level and inflict wounds on the Constitution. He invoked the Emergency to point out how Indira had subverted the Constitution.”

The daily writes that in any country the governments are supposed to look ahead. “The past is reviewed as part of a process of reforms so that the same mistakes are not repeated in future. However, it seems the Modi government is not ready to accept any mistakes, nor does it want any debate over it in Parliament or outside,” it says. “The country has multiple problems. For over a decade now, Modi is at the helm of the government. But still, he has sought to blame Nehru for every problem, which does not behove a responsible PM.”

The editorial says even if former PMs or past governments had hurt the Constitution, the onus is now on the present government to apply correctives and move forward. This is not being seen, it says. “The Constitution has given equal rights and opportunities to the minorities. But this is being eroded in a systematic and organised manner. The minorities are being given a raw deal amid talks of reducing them to second class citizens. Some are calling for stripping them of their voting rights. Some are asking them to leave the country. And, all this is happening under the current dispensation,” the edit says. “It is imperative that both the government and the Opposition speak in one voice that the Constitution will be the last word in running the country without any compromise. That would ensure effective implementation of the Constitution besides being a real tribute to its framers.”