SC Tags Owaisi's Plea for Enforcement of Places of Worship Act with Pending Cases

SC Tags Owaisi's Plea for Enforcement of Places of Worship Act with Pending Cases

The Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing of AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi's plea on February 17, alongside a series of petitions challenging and seeking strict enforcement of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. Here’s a detailed analysis of the legal and communal implications of this case:

What is the Places of Worship Act, 1991?

The Act is a legislative measure that aims to preserve the character of all religious places as they existed on August 15, 1947. Key provisions include:

• Section 3: Prohibits the conversion of any place of worship into one of a different religious character.
• Section 4: Bars the filing of suits or legal proceedings seeking such conversion for places of worship existing as of August 15, 1947.

The Act imposes strict penalties for violations and seeks to maintain communal harmony by freezing the religious character of places of worship.

Owaisi’s Plea: A Call for Strict Enforcement

Owaisi emphasized the necessity of preventing alterations to religious sites and ensuring the effective implementation of the 1991 Act. He seeks to safeguard India's secular fabric and prevent communal tensions arising from disputes over historical religious structures.

Current Legal Scenario

The Supreme Court has:

• Restricted all courts across India from issuing interim or final orders, including surveys, in cases related to religious sites.
• Stayed proceedings in around 18 lawsuits, many of which have sparked communal and political tensions.
• Prohibited the registration of fresh suits while pleas challenging the Act’s validity are being heard.

These measures aim to avoid further unrest and maintain peace until the matter is resolved judicially.

Challenges to the Act: Hindu Petitioners’ Perspective

Several Hindu petitioners have filed pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act. Their arguments include:

• The Act violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, infringing on the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to pray, manage, and administer their places of worship.
• The exclusion of Lord Krishna’s birthplace while exempting Lord Rama’s birthplace is discriminatory.
• The Act bars judicial remedies, violating the right to approach courts for legal redressal.
• It infringes on the rule of law and secularism, integral to the Constitution’s basic structure.

Muslim Petitioners’ Perspective: Defending the Act

Muslim organizations, including the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, have intervened, arguing:

• Entertaining pleas against the Act will open the floodgates for litigations targeting mosques across India.
• Such actions could disrupt communal harmony and reignite historical disputes.

These groups emphasize the need to uphold the Act’s provisions to preserve social order and secularism.

Historical and Communal Context

The Act emerged in the aftermath of disputes like the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case, which was exempted from the Act’s purview. Its intent was to prevent the recurrence of such conflicts and to freeze the religious status quo as of 1947.

Government's Stance Awaited

The Supreme Court has granted the central government four weeks to clarify its position on the Act. The lack of a clear stance has been a significant point of contention.

Key Figures in the Legal Battle

Prominent individuals and groups challenging or defending the Act include:

• From the Hindu side: BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, religious leaders like Swami Jeetendranand Saraswati, and former MP Chintamani Malviya.
• From the Muslim side: Management bodies of the Gyanvapi Mosque and Shahi Idgah Mosque.

What Lies Ahead?

As the Supreme Court prepares for the February 17 hearing, the stakes are high. The decision will have far-reaching implications on the interpretation of secularism, communal harmony, and the legal framework governing religious sites.

Conclusion

The Places of Worship Act, 1991, represents an attempt to reconcile India’s diverse religious history with its secular identity. The Supreme Court’s ruling will not only address the legal validity of this Act but will also set a precedent for handling similar disputes in the future.