Places of worship and an unsettling judicial silence 

In November 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered its verdict on the Babri Masjid case, offering a glimmer of hope to proponents of the idea of India. While the Court awarded the disputed plot of land to the party responsible for the desecration and demolition of the mosque, its commendation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 provided solace to those concerned about the sanctity of religious sites. This act, in essence, aimed to conclusively settle disputes regarding places of worship, including notable sites like the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura.

The unanimous stance of the five-judge Bench was clear: "By guaranteeing the preservation of the religious character of public places of worship as they stood on 15 August 1947, and prohibiting their conversion, Parliament sought to rectify historical injustices and instill confidence in every religious community regarding the protection of their sacred sites. The law is not only directed towards the State but also towards every citizen of the nation. The Places of Worship Act underscores our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution. It establishes a non-negotiable obligation to uphold our secular values, with non-retrogression being a fundamental aspect. Thus, the Act serves as a legislative safeguard preserving the core principles of our secular democracy."

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is an Act of the Parliament of India that prohibits the conversion of any place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination. It was enacted in the aftermath of the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, by Hindu mobs in 1992.

The Act defines a place of worship as "any building or place which is customarily used for the purpose of public worship by a religious community or section thereof." It also defines "conversion" as "any act of changing the character of a place of worship."

The Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from its status as on August 15, 1947, the day India gained independence from British rule. This means that any place of worship that was used for worship by a particular religious community on that day cannot be converted to a place of worship used by another religious community.

The Act has been challenged in court on several grounds, but it has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India.

Key provisions

• Prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from its status as on August 15, 1947.
• Defines a place of worship as "any building or place which is customarily used for the purpose of public worship by a religious community or section thereof."
• Defines "conversion" as "any act of changing the character of a place of worship."
• Provides for the maintenance of the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947.
• Overrides all other laws in force in India to the extent of inconsistency with the provisions of the Act.

Significance 

• The Act is seen as an important measure to prevent communal violence and maintain peace and harmony in India.
• It has been hailed by many as a progressive piece of legislation that promotes religious tolerance and understanding.
• However, the Act has also been criticized by some for being discriminatory and for perpetuating the status quo as of 1947.

Challenges

• The Act has been challenged in court on several grounds, including that it violates the fundamental right to freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
• The Act has also been criticized for being discriminatory against minority religious communities.

The Babri Masjid case is a highly sensitive and complex legal and historical issue in India, with deep religious and political undertones.  The Babri Masjid was a 16th-century mosque located in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. The site is the birthplace of Lord Rama, while Muslims consider it a sacred place of worship. Decades of dispute existed over the ownership of the site, leading to communal tensions.

The Legal Battle

• In 1961, idols of Hindu deities were placed inside the mosque, sparking controversy.
• Both Hindus and Muslims filed legal suits claiming ownership of the site.
• The decades-long legal battle involved multiple petitions and hearings.

The Demolition

• On December 6, 1992, a large group of Hindu activists demolished the Babri Masjid.
• This triggered widespread communal riots across India, resulting in hundreds of deaths.

The Verdict (2019)

• In November 2019, the Supreme Court of India issued its final verdict on the title dispute.
• The court awarded the disputed land to a Hindu trust for the construction of a Ram temple.
• It also ordered the government to allot alternative land to Muslims for building a new mosque.

Impact and Controversies

• The verdict sparked mixed reactions, with some celebrating and others expressing concerns.
• Some criticize the court's decision as favoring one community over another.
• The case continues to be a source of debate and tension, highlighting the complexities of religious and historical claims in India.

3. Challenges to Religious Harmony

• Following a brief period of tranquility, the specter of conflict reemerged. Within the subsequent year, a wave of petitions surfaced, advocating for the purported "liberation" of Hindu temples situated at sites where mosques now stand in Mathura and Kashi.
• These mosques have long been targeted by Hindutva groups, a sentiment echoed since the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi agitation, where the rallying cry often proclaimed, "Ayodhya is just the beginning, Kashi and Mathura are next."
• The Kashi mosque currently faces nearly 15 identical petitions, while the Mathura mosque contends with 12.
• Additionally, several other mosques, including the Shamsi Jama Masjid in Badaun, Teele Wali Masjid in Lucknow, Kamal Maula mosque in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, Adhai Din ka Jhonpra in Ajmer, the Jama Masjid in Srirangapatnam, and even the Quwwat-ul-Islam Masjid at the Qutub Minar in New Delhi, have been targeted with similar legal challenges.
• The allegations that these mosques were constructed by demolishing or restructuring ancient temples are contentious.
• For instance, in the case of Badaun, there was uncertainty among protesters regarding whether the mosque was built after the demolition of a temple or through its restructuring.
• Similarly, at the Kamal Maula Masjid, efforts were made to install an idol last September, purportedly to establish the mosque's origins as an 11th-century Hindu temple dedicated to the goddess Saraswati.
• However, these claims lacked substantial evidence. Despite the absence of proof, petitions were admitted in various district courts, further fueling tensions and uncertainties surrounding religious harmony.

4. Legal Challenges to the Places of Worship Act

• The legal landscape witnessed uncharted territory as revanchist forces tested new waters. Despite receiving a mere rap on the knuckles, particularly in the case of the Quwwat-ul-Islam Masjid, district and High Courts remained notably silent in the face of a deliberate challenge to the Places of Worship Act, lauded by the Supreme Court in the Babri judgment.
• Encouragement seemingly stemmed from an oral remark attributed to Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, suggesting that the ascertainment of a place's religious character might not necessarily violate the provisions of the 1991 Act.
• In response to the Allahabad High Court's directive for a survey of the Gyanvapi mosque, the Supreme Court, in a subsequent ruling, upheld the decision, indicating that the religious character of the mosque could indeed be determined.
• However, it stayed an order for a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura.
• Moreover, the Supreme Court agreed to hear multiple petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act itself.
• While asserting that the pendency of petitions did not affect the Act's maintainability, the court's decision to admit these petitions signaled a willingness to engage in debate.
• Notably, one petitioner, a former spokesman of the Bharatiya Janata Party, advocated for changing the Act's cut-off date from August 15, 1947, to 1206, when the Delhi Sultanate was founded.
• The swift and frequent filing of petitions at various levels was somewhat alarming, although courts may have been prepared. As early as 1994, just three years after the Act's enactment, the Supreme Court expressed concerns about potential violations of its provisions.
• Drawing parallels with the Babri Masjid demolition, the Court noted that individuals inclined towards such acts were unlikely to be deterred by the Act's provisions.
• The Places of Worship Act, while exempting the Babri Masjid, aimed to prevent similar demands regarding other monuments.
• Challenges to the Act itself constitute a breach of public trust, particularly considering its intended purpose post-Babri Masjid.
• These petitions have now become political tools, serving to advance certain narratives ahead of the 2024 general election, inciting public fervor and emboldening fringe leaders.

5. Reflections on History

• In the current climate of mounting petitions within the judiciary, it's crucial to recall the pivotal moment in Ayodhya in 1986.
• A district court's decision in Uttar Pradesh initiated a chain of events culminating in the mosque's destruction and the eventual possession of its land by the perpetrators. This judicial authorization fundamentally altered India's perception of places of worship.
• Now, the pertinent question arises: will the Supreme Court intervene to uphold the sanctity of the Places of Worship Act? Alternatively, will the continual extensions granted to the Union government to clarify its position pave the path for Parliament to repeal the Act?
• Already, dissenting voices against the Act echo in the Lok Sabha. Yet, it is the silence emanating from the apex court that proves disquieting.