Explained: The Places of Worship Act at the centre of Kashi Vishwanath Temple-Gyanvapi mosque dispute

A Varanasi court on Monday agreed to hear the case of five Hindu women, seeking the right to pray at a shrine inside the Gyanvapi mosque next to the famous Kashi Viswanath temple. Their petition will be heard on September 22.

At the centre of the decision, which is seen as the first win for the Hindu side, is the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.

The Varanasi District and Sessions Court dismissed the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee’s plea, challenging the maintainability of the civil suits filed by five Hindu women. The committee argued that the Places of Worship Act, which states that the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, must be maintained, barred the changing of the character of the mosque.

District Judge AK Vishvesh observed that the “main contentions of defendant are… the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.”

In its 26-page order, the court observed that the plaintiffs were worshipping at the disputed place “incessantly since a long time till 1993. After 1993, they were allowed to worship the above-mentioned Gods only once a year under the regulatory state of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, according to plaintiffs, they worshipped… at the disputed place regularly even after 15th August 1947.”

The court said given the discussions (arguments) and analysis, it has concluded that the suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (Act no. 42 of 1991).

What is The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991?

The Act was enacted to “prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947 and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.

The Act extends to the whole of India except the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Section 3 of the Act bars the conversion of places of worship. “No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof,” it says.

Section 4 (1) declares that “the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day”. According to Section 2 (1), any suit, appeal or other proceeding with respect to the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship existing on 15 August 1947, pending before any court, tribunal or other authority “shall abate. Any legal proceedings pending on the commencement of the Act “shall be disposed of”.

Section 5 of the Act says that it does not apply to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid. “Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the place or place of worship commonly known as Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid situated in Ayodhya in the State of Uttar Pradesh and to any suit, appeal or other proceeding relating to the said place or place of worship,” it says.

When was the Act passed?

The Act was introduced by the PV Narasimha Rao government at a time when the Ram temple movement was gaining momentum. BJP leader LK Advani’s Rath Yatra received massive support and there was tension simmering in the country after Advani was arrested in Bihar and Kar sevaks were shot at in Uttar Pradesh following orders by the Mulayam Singh government.

A Bill was introduced by Shankarrao Bhavrao Chavan, the then-Union Home Minister in the Narasimha Rao Cabinet, to prevent communal unrest.

The BJP, which was the main opposition party, had opposed the Bill. Then member of Parliament Uma Bharti brought up the Kashi Vishwanath temple-Gyanvapi mosque dispute. “Was not the intention of Aurangzeb behind leaving remnants of the temple (he destroyed) at the site of a mosque, to keep reminding Hindus of their historical fate and to remind coming generations of Muslims of their past glory and power?” she had asked, reports The Indian Express.

What had Supreme Court said about the Act during the Ayodhya verdict?

The Ramjanmaboomi-Babri Masjid title suit did not challenge the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act.

While delivering the verdict in 2019, the SC bench said, “In providing a guarantee for the preservation of the religious character of places of public worship as they existed on 15 August 1947 and against the conversion of places of public worship, Parliament determined that independence from colonial rule furnishes a constitutional basis for healing the injustices of the past by providing the confidence to every religious community that their places of worship will be preserved and that their character will not be altered.”

“The Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution. The law is hence a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution…”

What are the other petitions challenging the law?

There are several petitions filed against the Act which are pending in the Supreme Court, including that by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ashwini Upadhyay. He said that the law was a contravention of the principle of secularism as laid down by the Constitution.

“The Centre has barred remedies against illegal encroachment on places of worship and pilgrimages and now Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs cannot file a suit or approach a high court under Article 226. Therefore, they won’t be able to restore their places of worship and pilgrimage including temple endowments in the spirit of Articles 25-26 and the illegal barbarian acts of invaders will continue in perpetuity,” Upadhyay’s plea read.

The petition is related to a legal battle before a trial court over “reclaiming the birthplace of Lord Krishna in Mathura”, which was directly affected by provisions of the 1991 Act.

The court issued notice on the petition in March 2021, but the Centre is yet to file its reply, according to a report in The Indian Express.

Another petition challenging the validity of the Act is filed by Vishwa Bhadra Pujari Purohit Mahasangh.

What politicians and experts have said about the Act?

Ahead of the SC hearing in May, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen president Asaduddin Owaisi said that the Muslim community cannot lose another mosque after Babri.

Emphasising that Gyanvapi was a mosque and will remain a mosque forever, he said, “It was decided in the Parliament that worship’s religious character must remain the same as it was on August 15, 1947.”

In an article published in The Quint, Justice Govind Mathur, a former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, wrote, “The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act ,1991 was introduced as a measure to provide and develop glorious traditions of love, peace, and harmony.”

Talking about the Gyanvapi mosque case, he said, the “case appears to be a part of an agenda to raise and agitate the issues relating to the places of worship which were said to be converted centuries ago. This, and the efforts alike are causing serious injuries to communal harmony.”

With inputs from agencies

Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.