What's New

Safeguarding Secularism in Worship Disputes

Syllabus:

GS 2:

• Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors.
• Government legislation on current issues .

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay petitions challenging the character of places of worship based on historical claims ensures protection of constitutional values and prevents communal disharmony.

Constitutional Values and Religious Freedom

• Liberty assurance: The Constitution guarantees liberty of thought, belief, and worship, promoting national unity and reinforcing fraternity among diverse communities, essential for India’s pluralistic democracy.
• Multicultural foundation: Religious equality and freedom of worship are integral to India’s cultural traditions, reflecting the inclusive spirit embedded in its constitutional framework.
• Article 25 safeguard: Secures the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, provided public order, morality, and health are not compromised, ensuring coexistence.
• Act of 1991 provision: Ensures places of worship retain their character as they were on August 15, 1947, preventing disputes over religious sites.
• Fraternity emphasis: The Constitution’s preamble envisions fraternity, dignity, and unity, rejecting divisive narratives driven by historical grievances or sectarian motives.

Places of Worship Act:

About the Act

• Enacted to freeze the status of religious places as of August 15, 1947.
• Prohibits conversion of any place of worship and ensures their religious character is maintained.

Major Provisions

• Prohibition of Conversion (Section 3):
• Prevents conversion of any place of worship between or within religious denominations.
• Maintenance of Religious Character (Section 4(1)):
• Safeguards the identity of religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947.
• Abatement of Pending Cases (Section 4(2)):
• Terminates ongoing legal cases related to pre-1947 conversions and prohibits filing new ones.
• Exceptions to the Act (Section 5):
• Does not apply to:
• Historical monuments under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1958.
• Cases resolved before the Act or settled through mutual agreement.
• Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute and related legal matters.
• Penalties (Section 6):
• Violators face up to 3 years’ imprisonment and fines.

Challenges of Politicizing Worship

• Historical misuse: Reopening historical wrongs fosters communal discord, penalizing current generations for past actions, eroding societal trust and harmony.
• Judicial exploitation: Dubious petitions over worship sites overburden courts, transforming them into arenas for political agendas rather than spaces of justice.
• Emotional manipulation: Public sentiments are exploited through divisive claims, igniting unrest and weakening the secular framework of governance.
• Targeting worshippers: Religious communities feel alienated and threatened, leading to an environment of fear and social polarization.
• Undermining unity: Actions rooted in sectarianism counter constitutional values, fostering a sense of “us versus them” detrimental to India’s diversity.

Supreme Court’s Intervention

• Judicial restraint: The interim stay prevents misuse of courts for fueling divisive agendas, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding secularism and rule of law.
• Discouraging misuse: By halting such petitions, the judiciary signals that courts should not entertain matters that exacerbate communal tensions.
• Building trust: Swift judicial action reassures minorities and reinforces faith in the impartiality of constitutional mechanisms.
• Preventing misuse: Ensuring petitions lack merit before acceptance discourages frivolous claims that aim to disrupt communal harmony.
• Secular precedence: The judiciary’s stand reinforces the constitutional commitment to secularism, rejecting attempts to alter religious sites for political gains.

Legal Safeguards Against Misuse

• Act of 1991 clarity: Protects the status quo of places of worship, ensuring their sanctity and resisting any attempts to alter their character.
• Article 25 primacy: Fundamental rights to religious practice override statutory claims inconsistent with constitutional guarantees, ensuring worship sites remain protected.
• Statutory alignment: Laws like the Ancient Monuments Acts reinforce the preservation of religious sites, irrespective of their maintenance status.
• Policy consistency: The government must align its policies with constitutional values to discourage exploitation of religion for political motives.
• Addressing silence: The lack of government response on divisive petitions raises concerns, necessitating proactive measures to uphold secularism.

Challenges in Addressing the Issue

• Political motives: Court petitions are often backed by political agendas, aiming to consolidate majority votes through religious polarization.
• Hate rhetoric: Political and public narratives, bordering on hate speech, deepen divisions, undermining communal harmony and secularism.
• Judicial overreach: Courts lack the tools to verify historical claims accurately, making such cases inherently controversial and legally complex.
• Majoritarian bias: Actions perceived as favoring majority communities alienate minorities, fostering distrust and destabilizing social unity.
• Erosion of secularism: Allowing religious disputes to dominate public discourse weakens India’s secular ethos, threatening its democratic integrity.

Way Forward

• Strengthen laws: Reinforce existing laws like the Act of 1991 to prevent legal challenges to the character of places of worship.
• Promote dialogue: Encourage interfaith discussions to foster mutual respect and counter divisive narratives based on historical grievances.
• Judicial guidelines: Establish clear judicial protocols to assess and dismiss frivolous petitions targeting religious sites to reduce misuse.
• Transparency in governance: Governments must openly reject divisive actions and uphold constitutional values to reinforce public trust in secularism.
• Public awareness: Educate citizens about constitutional rights and the dangers of mixing religion with politics to promote harmony and resilience.

Religion and Politics: A Toxic Mix

• Majoritarian agenda: Using religion as a political tool undermines democratic principles and deepens societal divides, marginalizing vulnerable communities.
• Rath Yatra precedent: Historical movements mixing religion with politics highlight the dangers of exploiting faith for electoral gains.
• Neglect of values: Ignoring constitutional principles fosters an environment ripe for discord and sectarianism, countering India’s democratic ethos.
• Privatizing religion: Encouraging personal religious practice over public displays ensures faith thrives without disrupting societal harmony.
• Democratic focus: Embracing inclusivity and rejecting religious polarization strengthens democracy, ensuring India’s unity and diversity are preserved.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to halt petitions challenging places of worship reaffirms India’s commitment to secularism. Prioritizing constitutional values over divisive agendas ensures unity, harmony, and the democratic integrity of the Republic.

Mains Practice Question

Discuss the constitutional safeguards protecting places of worship in India. Examine the challenges posed by politicizing religious sites and suggest measures to uphold secularism and communal harmony in a diverse society.