Understanding the Places of Worship Act, 1991: Key provisions and implications
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 has been in the news recently due to the ongoing disputes over religious sites in India following a court-ordered survey of a 16th century mosque, Shahi Jama Masjid in western UP’s Sambhal.
Enacted by Parliament during the PV Narasimha Rao government in the backdrop of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir agitation, this Act freezes the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, except that of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid, which was demolished by karsevaks on December 6, 1992. Following a Supreme Court verdict, a Ram temple has been constructed at Ayodhya.
However, with regard to other disputed religious sites, including the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah at Mathura and Kashi Vishwanath–Gyanvapi Mosque disputes, the Act continues to operate as a bar against any possible change in the character of the religious structure.
Crucial provisions of the Act
The Section 3 of the Act prohibits the conversion of a religious place of worship or a section of a religious place of worship into a place of worship of a different religion or a different denomination of the same religion.
According to Section 4(2) of the Act, all appeals, suits or other proceedings with respect to converting the religious character of a place of worship shall end on the commencement of the Act. Also, fresh appeals won’t be allowed to be filed.
Legal proceedings could be initiated if the change of religious character of a place of worship was done after the cut-off date of August 15, 1947.
According to Section 6, any violation of Section 3 would invite three-year imprisonment and fine.
The Act imposes a positive obligation on the State to maintain the religious character of all places of worship as it existed at the time of independence.
Exemptions under the Act
Any place of worship, which is an ancient and historical monument or an archaeological site covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, is exempted from the purview of the Act.
Any dispute that has been settled by the parties or conversion of any place that took place by acquiescence before the commencement of the Act stands exempted from the operation of the law.
Also, a suit with regard to a place of worship that has been finally settled or disposed of would also be out of the ambit of this Act.
Supreme Court verdict on the Act
In its 2019 Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi verdict, a five-judge Constitution Bench said that “the Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution” and “is an affirmation of the solemn duty which was cast upon the State to preserve and protect the equality of all faiths as an essential constitutional value, a norm which has the status of being a basic feature of the Constitution.”
“The State has, by enacting the law, enforced a constitutional commitment and operationalised its constitutional obligations to uphold the equality of all religions and secularism which is a part of the basic features of the Constitution,” the top court said.
Challenges to the Act
The petitioners, including BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and Ashwini Upadhyay, retired Army officer Anil Kabotra, advocates Chandra Shekhar and Rudra Vikram Singh, Devkinandan Thakur Ji, Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati, and former BJP MP Chintamani Malviya have challenged the validity of the Act.
The petitioners alleged that the 1991 Act created an “arbitrary and irrational retrospective cut-off date” of August 15, 1947, for maintaining the character of the places of worship or pilgrimage against encroachment done by “fundamentalist-barbaric invaders and law-breakers”.
The petitioners have challenged the Act on the ground that it “barred the right and remedy against encroachment made on religious property of Hindus exercising might of power by followers of another faith.”
Parliament has without resolution of disputes, through process of court, abated the suit and proceedings, which is per se unconstitutional and beyond its law making power, they contended.
Parliament cannot restrain Hindu devotees from getting back their religious places of worship through the judicial process, the petitioners submitted.
They argued that Parliament cannot make any law which takes away or abridges the vested religious right of devotees and cannot make any law with retrospective effect, it said, invoking fundamental right to religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Parliament cannot restrain Hindu devotees to get back their religious places of worship through judicial process and cannot make any law which takes away or abridges the vested religious right of devotees and cannot make any law with retrospective effect, they said.
Muslim bodies’ stand
In June, 2022, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind moved the Supreme Court, seeking dismissal of petitions challenging the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, saying it will open floodgates of litigation against countless mosques across India.
“There is a list of numerous mosques which are doing the rounds on social media, alleging that the mosques were built allegedly by destroying Hindu places of worship. Needless to say that if the present petition is entertained, it will open floodgates of litigation against countless mosques in the country and the religious divide from which the country is recovering in the aftermath of the Ayodhya dispute will only be widened,” the Muslim body said.
The Gyanvapi Mosque management committee too has moved the Supreme Court to oppose petitions challenging the validity of the Act, saying historical wrongs or perceived injustices of the past should not undermine the principles of secularism and non-retrogression upheld by the Act.
