The Places of Worship Act 1991 was enacted during to preserve the religious character of places of worship since August 15, 1947. The Supreme Court is hearing petitions challenging its constitutional validity, arguing it limits religious rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs. Surveying a place of worship does not automatically violate the Act.
Copyright infringement not intended
Picture Courtesy: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-bars-registration-of-new-suits-against-places-of-worship-stops-courts-from-passing-effectivefinalsurvey-orders-in-pending-suits-278147
The Supreme Court prohibited civil courts from registering new lawsuits challenging the ownership or title to religious sites. It also prohibits orders for surveys of disputed religious sites until the next hearing on February 17, 2025.
The Act was enacted during the Ramjanmabhoomi movement, which sought to construct a Ram temple at the Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya. The law was enacted to prevent future religious unrest and lawsuits.
The Act aimed to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. It prohibits the conversion of any place of worship, whether within or between religions to preserve its original form.
Section 4(1) requires that the religious character of a place of worship be maintained as of August 15, 1947.
Section 4(2) states that any existing legal proceedings involving religious conversions that were pending on that date will be suspended, and no new proceedings will be initiated.
There are some exceptions to Section 4, such as cases involving protected sites or mutual agreements.
The Section 5 of the Act excludes the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case from its provisions, which makes it a special exception to the law's application.
The recent case involves petitions that challenge the Act's constitutional validity. Petitioners claim that it violates judicial review, a fundamental feature of the Constitution, and imposes an arbitrary retrospective cutoff date that limits the religious rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs.
The main question is whether district courts hearing civil suits over ownership or title to places of worship compromise the 1991 Act's objective of addressing such disputes and preventing future conversions.
|
Earlier observation made by the Supreme Court In 2022, the Court clarified that surveying a place of worship does not automatically violate the 1991 Act. The Court further examined at how religious identities coexist in certain places of worship, recognising "hybrid character" situations. |
The Court asked the Union Government to clarify its position on the constitutional validity of the Act within four weeks. The Court also emphasized that lower civil courts must follow the principles laid out in the Ayodhya judgment and 1991 act, stressing that civil courts should not act in a manner that contradicts Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court stated that even without the Places of Worship Act, constitutional principles may prevent suits attempting to change the religious character of places of worship. The petitions questioning whether the Act limits judicial review powers add another layer of constitutional scrutiny.
The dispute is over claims that the mosque was built on the site of the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. In 2021, Hindu devotees requested permission to worship idols allegedly housed within the mosque. The courts granted partial access for worship.
The dispute originates from claims that the mosque was built on the birthplace of Lord Krishna. Petitioners also question a 1968 agreement that allowed mosques and temples to coexist. The Allahabad High Court is hearing the case.
Devotees claim that the mosque was built on Laxman Teela after the Hindu temple was demolished. The case is currently pending in the Allahabad High Court.
According to a petition, an ancient temple dedicated to Atala Devi once existed on the site of the mosque. A court ordered a survey, but the case is currently being challenged in the Allahabad High Court.
According to the lawsuit, the mosque in the Qutub Minar complex was built after the destruction of 27 Hindu and Jain temples. The suit was rejected by a lower court, and an appeal is currently pending before an Additional District Judge.
The petitioners claim that the mosque was built on top of a temple dedicated to Lord Kalki. A local court ordered a survey, which was later overruled by the Supreme Court.
A suit filed in September 2024 alleges the presence of a Lord Shiva temple on the property. Notices have been issued to the appropriate authorities, and the case is ongoing.
Must Read Articles:
Source:
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q.Analyze the role of the 1991 Places of Worship Act in upholding the principle of secularism as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. (150 words) |
© 2024 iasgyan. All right reserved
