• UGI USER
  • Feb 16, 2024
  • 20 Likes
  • 1 Comments

PLACES OF WORSHIP AND AN UNSETTLING JUDICIAL SILENCE

Relevance: GS 2- Indian Constitution, Secularism, Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States

Why in the News?

  • Supreme Court of India’s verdict in November 2019 addressed the Babri Masjid case.
  • Court allocated the disputed plot of land to the party responsible for the mosque’s desecration and demolition.
    • Court made a glowing reference to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 which promises to prevent further contentions regarding places of worship.
  • Notably addresses potential disputes over other places of worship like the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura.
  • Signifies a step towards preserving religious harmony and stability in India.

About the Act

  • The five-judge Bench unanimously expressed the view that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, provides a guarantee for preserving the religious character of public places of worship as they existed on 15 August 1947.
  • Emphasized the Act’s role in preventing the conversion of places of public worship.
  • Parliament, by enacting the law, aimed to address past injustices and instill confidence in every religious community regarding the preservation of their places of worship.
  • Parliament’s determination was rooted in the constitutional basis provided by India’s independence from colonial rule.

State and Citizen Obligation

  • The Places of Worship Act is viewed as addressing both the State and every citizen of the nation.
  • It imposes a non-derogable obligation on both the State and citizens to enforce the commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution.

Preserving Non-Retrogression

  • Non-retrogression is highlighted as a foundational feature of fundamental constitutional principles, with secularism being a core component.
  • The legislative intervention of the Places of Worship Act is characterized as preserving non-retrogression as an essential aspect of India’s secular values.

Initiation of Petitions

  • Following the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi agitation, petitions began to surface for the “liberation” of Hindu temples where mosques in Mathura and Kashi stand.
  • These petitions were fueled by Hindutva forces’ long-standing interest in these sites.
  • Kashi Mosque: Approximately 15 identical petitions have been filed against the mosque in Kashi.
  • Mathura Mosque: Faces 12 petitions seeking its “liberation.”
  • Similar petitions have been filed in lower judiciary against mosques across various regions:
    • Shamsi Jama Masjid in Badaun
      • Protesters expressed uncertainty regarding whether the mosque was constructed after demolishing a temple or through restructuring an existing one.
    • Teele Wali Masjid in Lucknow
    • Kamal Maula mosque in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh
      • An idol was attempted to be placed in September of last year to support the claim that the mosque was originally an 11th-century temple dedicated to the Hindu goddess Saraswati.
    • Adhai Din ka Jhonpra in Ajmer
    • Jama Masjid in Srirangapatnam
    • Quwwat-ul-Islam Masjid at the Qutub Minar in New Delhi.

Questionable Claims

  • Claims suggesting mosques were built after demolishing ancient temples have been contested.
  • Lack of substantial evidence to support contentions raised by right-wing activists.
  • Despite the absence of concrete proof, various district courts have admitted these petitions, allowing legal proceedings to proceed.

Challenges Faced by the Places of Worship Act

  • Testing New Territories:
    • Revanchist forces began testing new territories, challenging the status quo regarding religious places.
    • These actions amounted to a deliberate challenge to the Places of Worship Act, despite its glowing endorsement by the Supreme Court in the Babri judgment.
  • Response of Courts:
    • Except for a minor rebuke, as seen in the case of the Quwwat-ul-Islam Masjid, district and High Courts remained largely silent.
    • This silence signaled a tacit acceptance of the challenges posed to the Places of Worship Act.
  • Chief Justice’s Remark:
    • Revanchist forces may have drawn encouragement from an oral remark attributed to Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud.
    • The remark suggested that the ascertainment of the religious character of a place might not necessarily violate the provisions of the Act.
      • The remark probably opened a Pandora’s box.
    • Judicial Actions:
      • When the Allahabad High Court ordered a survey of the Gyanvapi mosque, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the decision.
      • This indicated that the religious character of Gyanvapi could indeed be ascertained.
      • However, the Supreme Court stayed the Allahabad High Court’s order for a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura earlier this year.
    • Supreme Court’s Action:
      • 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.
      • One petitioner objected to the Act’s cut-off date of August 15, 1947, proposing the date of 1206, the time when Qutbuddin Aibak laid the foundation of the Delhi Sultanate. The Court’s consideration of this objection was noteworthy.
    • Alarming Frequency of Petitions
      • The speed and frequency of petitions seeking the restoration of places of worship to their alleged status several centuries ago were alarming.
      • Despite this, the courts seemed prepared, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s expression of apprehensions in 1994 regarding potential flouting of the Act’s provisions.
    • Breach of Public Trust:
      • An exception for the Babri Masjid, while aiming to prevent demands on other monuments, are viewed as a breach of public trust.
      • These petitions are perceived as a political weapon, serving to further a specific political narrative in anticipation of the 2024 general election.
      • The excitement generated among the public and the vocal aggression of fringe leaders highlight the political dimension of these petitions.

Considerations to Reflect Upon

  • The events in Ayodhya in 1986, triggered by a district court’s order, set in motion a chain of events leading to the destruction of the mosque and the seizure of its land.
  • This incident reshaped India’s perception of places of worship, highlighting the potential consequences of legal decisions regarding religious sites.
  • Supreme Court’s Role:
    • The question arises whether the Supreme Court will intervene to uphold the integrity of the Places of Worship Act.
    • The Court’s silence on the matter is unsettling, considering its pivotal role in safeguarding constitutional principles and ensuring justice.
  • Government’s Stance:
    • The Union government has been granted extensions to specify its stance on the Act, raising concerns about its commitment to upholding religious harmony and secular values.
    • There are apprehensions that continued delays may pave the way for the Act’s repeal by Parliament.
  • Parliamentary Debate:
    • Noises against the Act have already surfaced in the Lok Sabha, indicating a growing sentiment for its reconsideration.
    • The Act’s fate hangs in the balance as parliamentary debates and discussions unfold.
  • Urgency for Supreme Court Intervention:
    • Given the potential ramifications and the growing challenges to the Act, there is an urgent need for the Supreme Court to assert its role in upholding the rule of law and preserving the secular fabric of the nation.

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/places-of-worship-and-an-unsettling-judicial-silence/article67850384.ece

Mains question

Discuss the historical significance of the Ayodhya case in shaping India’s approach to places of worship. Evaluate the current challenges to the Places of Worship Act and the role of the Supreme Court. (250 words)