The story so far: The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, is once again in focus, albeit in a context in which its objectives are being ignored. Civil suits questioning the religious character of mosques at Varanasi and Mathura are progressing apace. These developments show that legislation freezing the status of places of worship is inadequate to stop Hindu claimants from making determined legal efforts to achieve their goal of replacing them with temples.
Why was the Places of Worship Act enacted?
When the Babri-Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi dispute gained momentum, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other Hindu organisations took up the case of two other mosques — the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah in Mathura. In September 1991, the P.V. Narasimha Rao government enacted a special law to freeze the status of places of worship as they were on August 15, 1947. The law kept the disputed structure at Ayodhya out of its purview as it was then an ongoing litigation.
What are the Act’s main features?
The Act declares that the religious character of a place of worship shall continue to be the same as it was on August 15, 1947. It says that no person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination into one of a different denomination or section. It declares that all suits, appeals or any other proceedings regarding converting the character of a place of worship, which are pending before any court or authority on August 15, 1947, will abate as soon as the law comes into force. No further legal proceedings can be instituted.
There are a couple of exceptions to the rule. The 1991 Act will not apply to ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains that are covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. It will also not apply to any suit that has been finally settled or disposed of, any dispute that has been settled by the parties before the 1991 Act came into force, or to the conversion of any place that took place by acquiescence.
What is the status of the ongoing cases on the Gyanvapi mosque?
A suit was filed in 2022 in the Varanasi district court by a group of Hindu women worshippers seeking to assert their right to worship deities they claim are still found on the premises of the Gyanvapi mosque. The plaintiffs say they have a right to worship Ma Sringar Gauri, Ganesh, Hanuman and other “visible and invisible” deities. Also pending is another batch of suits filed in 1991 seeking a declaration that a part of the site of the Gyanvapi mosque belongs to Lord Vishweshwar.
The main basis for the suits is that the Hindu side says that an old temple of Lord Vishweshwar lies at the centre of the Gyanvapi compound. The site, they contend, is the abode of the ‘self-manifested’ deity since time immemorial. They claim that the temple was demolished on the order of Emperor Aurangzeb in 1669.
So far, court orders have favoured the position that these suits are not barred by the Places of Worship Act. On the district court’s order, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has conducted a survey of the premises.
The ASI’s report, submitted to the Varanasi district court, claims that a temple existed there prior to the construction of the mosque. Subsequently, the court has allowed the conduct of Hindu prayers at a cellar on the premises. The order allowing Hindu prayers has been questioned by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, which administers the Gyanvapi mosque.
The suits in Mathura pertain to the Shahi Idgah mosque that stands adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple there. These suits claim that the mosque was built over the birthplace of Lord Krishna. The mosque committee, however, denies the allegation. The dispute was settled through a compromise between the Sri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and the Shahi Idgah Trust in 1968, and implemented through a decree in 1974. As part of the settlement, the Sansthan had given up a portion of the land to the Idgah. The current suits challenge this compromise as ‘fraudulent’ and seek the transfer of the entire parcel of land to the deity. The Allahabad High Court has transferred to itself all suits pertaining to the Mathura dispute.
Why hasn’t the Act barred suits on Gyanvapi and Shahi Idgah?
In both disputes, the respective mosque committees sought rejection of the suits on the ground that the Places of Worship Act prohibits such litigation. However, court orders so far say the Act does not bar these suits and that they must go on.
In the Gyanvapi worshippers’ case, the ruling is that the suits aimed to assert the right of worship of the Hindu deities and did not seek to convert the status of the mosque. Regarding the earlier batch of suits, the Allahabad High Court has taken the view that the Act does not define the term ‘religious character’. A structure cannot have the dual character of being both Hindu and Muslim, and that only an examination of evidence can determine its religious character. The Act cannot be an absolute bar on proceedings to ascertain its religious character, it held.
Regarding the Mathura dispute, the district court has taken the view that the suits are not barred by the Places of Worship Act, as what is under challenge is the compromise decree based on the 1968 agreement. As the decree was drawn up before the commencement of the 1991 Act, it is not applicable to the case, it has held.
- The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, is once again in focus, albeit in a context in which its objectives are being ignored. Civil suits questioning the religious character of mosques at Varanasi and Mathura are progressing apace.
- The ASI’s report, submitted to the Varanasi district court, claims that a temple existed there prior to the construction of the mosque. Subsequently, the court has allowed the conduct of Hindu prayers at a cellar on the premises.
- In both disputes, the respective mosque committees sought rejection of the suits on the ground that the Places of Worship Act prohibits such litigation. However, court orders so far say the Act does not bar these suits and that they must go on.
Published - February 04, 2024 03:55 am IST
