The Supreme Court is all set to hear the petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, following an extended period characterised by political manoeuvring and legal uncertainty. The forthcoming hearing, amidst unresolved historical claims and constitutional enquiries, has rekindled public interest in a statute that has mainly stayed dormant for almost thirty years. This law preserves religious character of places of worship as on August 15, 1947.
Several petitions are currently pending before the Apex Court, some challenging Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act, while others for its strict enforcement. The Supreme Court of India refused to consider a fresh petition against the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, underscored the imprudence of multiple proceedings on the same matter and asked the intended to file an intervention application instead. Justice Khanna is the not the first Chief Justice of India to address these cross petitions, one challenging the legality of the 1991 Act and the other demanding its implementation.
Object of the Act, 1991
The said Act came into existence following the Ayodhya movement. It was enacted by the Congress Government in response to the escalating Ram Janma Bhumi campaign. The movement experienced a vigorous campaign that incited violence. Certain groups advocated for the coercive conversion of places of worship. Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao served as Prime Minister, while Mr. S.B. Chavan held the position of Home Minister. The Home Minister stated that this Bill is perceived as a means to uphold and cultivate our esteemed traditions of love, peace, and harmony. Tolerance for all faiths has characterized our great civilization since time immemorial. The Bill had strong resistance from the leaders of the Bhartiya Janata Party, who were in the resistance. In his opposition to the Bill, Mr. Ram Naik characterised it as the most egregious legislation.
What is the Act of 1991?
It bans the conversion of places of worship and preserves their religious character of any place of worship as it was on August 15, 1947. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the conversion of any places of worship of any religious denomination into place of worship of different religious denomination or other section of the same religious denomination. Section 4(1) preserves a place of worship’s religious character as on August 15, 1947. Section 4(2) states that any suit, appeal, or other proceeding pending before any court, tribunal, or other authority, regarding the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship, as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, shall abate, and no such suit, appeal, or other proceeding shall lie on or after such commencement. If a suit, appeal, or other proceeding instituted or filed on the ground that a place’s religious character has changed after August 15, 1947, is pending on the commencement of this Act, it will be disposed of according to sub-section (1). Section 4(3) excludes 1958’s Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act. It does not apply to settled or mutually agreed disputes or conversions before the Act’s implementation. The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case and related legal actions are exempt from the Act under Section 5, allowing the Ram Temple to be built.
Judicial Scrutiny Amid Rising Number of Petitions
In the Ram Janmabhumi case, the Supreme Court upheld the Act on November 19, 2019. The Court noted that the Act protects the Constitution’s fundamental values. Further, due to the restriction imposed under Section 4(2) of the Act, the outcome of the suits to determine the religious character of place of worship is uncertain. The petition challenging section 2,3 and 4 of the said Act is pending in the Apex Court since 2020. Supreme Court, via its order dated December 12, 2024, observed that the primary issue, that arises for consideration, is with regard to Sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 Act and its contours, as well as the width and expanse of the said provisions and further stated that though fresh suit may be filed, no suit would be registered and no proceeding shall be undertaken further in the pending suits, no court will pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders directing surveys, etc. till further orders of the Court. Consequently, the Lower Courts are prohibited from allowing surveys or ASI reports, as seen in several recent cases.
Following December 12, 2024 many petitions were filed including those by AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, Samajwadi Party representative and Kairana MP Iqra Choudhary, and the Congress Party, advocating for the proper enforcement of the 1991 legislation. Choudhary, the Lok Sabha MP from Kairana, Uttar Pradesh, on February 14, tried to mitigate the rising trend of legal measures against mosques and dargahs, which he asserted jeopardise communal peace and the secular fabric of the nation. The Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind has filed a petition for the implementation and enforcement of the Act. Numerous intervention applications have been filed by political parties such as CPI(M), Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), DMK, RJD, and NCP (Sharad Pawar), among others, endorsing the Act.
Government’s Reluctance to Clarify Its Stand
The present Union government has not yet expressed a definitive position on these concerns. In the last three years, the Supreme Court has permitted many delays for the government to submit a response, with the latest postponement being in February 2025, deferring the issue until April. The extended silence has prompted conjecture on the government’s stance, particularly in light of the Act’s historical setting and its ramifications for current controversies surrounding religious sites.
Judicial Dilemma in a Sensitive Dispute
Amid ongoing historical and theological conflicts about places of worship, it is imperative to maintain communal harmony and mutual respect among all groups. The court faces a complex challenge of reconciling historical grievances with constitutional tenets while ensuring that judicial outcomes are not furthering community differences. An equitable and impartial approach, one that honours faith, law, and national cohesion is vital for preserving peace while addressing the interests of all parties involved.
Dr. Alisha is an Assistant Professor of Law at Symbiosis Law School, Pune and Advocate Aniket is a practicing lawyer based in Pune, Maharashtra.