I’ve had a ringside view of the making of many legal guidelines. I all the time impressed upon the draftspersons of the Ministry of Regulation to maintain the Invoice brief, crisp and clear.
- One such regulation was The Locations of Worship (Particular Provisions) Act, 1991. In my opinion, it’s brief — solely 8 Sections. It was crisp — it had one goal and that was to freeze the character of a spot of worship because it existed on the daybreak of Independence. It was clear — no ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’ or ‘notwithstandings’ or ‘with out prejudices’.
I might urge everybody to learn Part 3 and Part 4(1) the Act, that are as beneath:
- Bar of conversion of locations of worship: No individual shall convert anyplace of worship of any non secular denomination or any part thereof into a spot of worship of a distinct part of the identical non secular denomination or of a distinct non secular denomination or any part thereof.
- Declaration as to the non secular character of sure locations of worship and bar of jurisdiction of courts, and so forth. — (1) It’s hereby declared that the non secular character of a spot of worship present on the fifteenth day of August, 1947 shall proceed to be the identical because it existed on that day.
The one exception was the place of worship generally often known as Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid located in Ayodhya as a result of there was an ongoing dispute.
There was widespread acceptance of the intent, function, spirit and scope of the Act. In my opinion, the Act achieved its function as a result of there was peace and tranquility on points regarding locations of worship for almost 30 years. By and enormous, the individuals accepted {that a} temple shall stay a temple, a mosque shall stay a mosque, a church shall stay a church, a gurdwara shall stay a gurdwara, a synagogue shall stay a synagogue, and each different place of worship shall retain the identical character it had possessed on August 15, 1947.
Benign Neglect
Sadly, there’s valuable little info on the working of the Act. Queries to PRISM (a Parliamentary analysis facility) revealed that the federal government of the day gave bland solutions on three events concerning the arrests and prosecutions beneath the Act. The most effective that may be mentioned of the working of the Act is that successive governments have proven benign neglect of the Act.
Enter the Courts. On October 28, 2020, a Writ Petition was filed within the Supreme Court docket of India. The prayers are instructive: Declare that Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Locations of Worship (Particular Provisions) Act, 1991 are void and unconstitutional in as far as they search to validate ‘locations of worship’ illegally made by barbaric invaders. Observe that Sections 3 and 4 type the core of the Act. Absent Sections 3 and 4, there’s nothing within the Act. These provisions have been challenged within the Supreme Court docket on the grounds that they’re violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26 and 29 of the Structure of India. Observe additionally that these ‘locations of worship’ have been, in accordance with the Petitioner, illegally made by barbaric invaders. Within the paragraph resulting in the three prayers, the Petitioner didn’t disguise whose trigger he was espousing and which was the goal neighborhood. He wished to revive the non secular locations of ‘Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs’ by means of regulation. The Writ Petition has been pending since 2020.
Dispute Over Gyanvapi
In 2023, the Supreme Court docket entertained a Particular Depart Petition filed by the Committee of Administration Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, Varanasi. The SLP challenged the order dated August 3, 2023 of the Excessive Court docket of Allahabad. The District Decide had directed an archaeological survey of the world during which the Gyanvapi Mosque was located. The Excessive Court docket had dismissed the Attraction and the Petitioners approached the Supreme Court docket. The Supreme Court docket, by an order dated August 4, 2023, mentioned that “we’re unable to vary with the view of the Excessive Court docket, significantly whereas exercising the jurisdiction beneath Article 136 of the Structure, … and recorded the submission of the Solicitor Basic … that the complete course of shall be concluded by any non-invasive methodology that could be adopted by the ASI.”
Such was the style during which the Pandora’s field was opened. The Court docket didn’t enquire into the motive of the Plaintiffs who had filed Civil Go well with 18 of 2022 praying that they have been entitled to carry out rituals of deities which allegedly have been current inside the premises of the Gyanvapi mosque. The clear try of the Plaintiffs was to worship Hindu deities that have been allegedly current in a mosque. In the event that they have been permitted to carry out the rituals and worship the deities, it could convert the mosque, at the least partially, right into a temple. That was within the enamel of the plain language of Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act.
Chain Response
Was it troublesome to see by the motive of the Plaintiffs and the results of permitting the prayers within the Go well with? In my opinion, the Supreme Court docket ought to have invoked its powers beneath Article 142 of the Structure to do “full justice”, known as the go well with to its file, and dismissed the go well with holding that the Act that was honoured for 30 years ought to be upheld in any respect prices. Following the Gyanvapi order, there are disputes raised concerning the Idgah mosque at Mathura, Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh, the Qutub complicated in Delhi, and the Ajmer Sharif Dargah in Rajasthan. The place will it finish?
The Gyanvapi order can have penalties just like the notorious ADM Jabalpur case.
