The needless resurrection of a buried issue

Context: An analysis of the Supreme Court’s notice to the Central Government on a petition challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

About the Places of Worship Act, (PoWA) 1991

• Purpose: It prohibits conversion of any place of worship and to provide for maintenance of religious character of any place of worship as of 15^th day of August, 1947.
  • Section 2: Defines- the commencement of the Act i.e. on the 11th day of July, 1991 and ‘places of worship’.
  • Section 3: Bars the conversion of places of worship.
  • Section 4: Declaration as to the religious character of certain places of worship and bar of jurisdiction of courts etc.
• Exemption: Section 5 of the Act exempts Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid, situated in Ayodhya.

T.T. Krishnamachari laid emphasis on the fact that “a new government and the new Constitution have to take things as they are, and unless the status quo has something which offends all ideas of decency, all ideas of equity and all ideas of justice, its continuance has to be provided for in the Constitution so that people who are coming under the regime of a new government may feel that the change is not a change for the worse.”

Recent developments: Recently, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Central government on a petition challenging the validity of certain provisions of the PoWA.

• Petition seeks setting aside of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Act on the grounds that they “validate ‘places of worship’, illegally made by barbaric invaders.
• For E.g. From 1192­-1947, the invaders not only damaged destroyed desecrated the places of worship and pilgrimage depicting Indian culture from north to south, east to west, but also occupied the same under military power.

Supreme Court on significance of PoWAinM. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ram Janmabhoomi temple case)

• Protects and secures fundamental values of Constitution: Binding duty onstateas well as citizen, implements fundamental duties under Article 51A.
• Intrinsically related to obligations of a secular state: Reflects commitment of India to equality of all religions.
• Side-lining historical wrongs:Parliament has mandated in no uncertain terms that history and its wrongs shall not be used as instruments to oppress the present and the future.

Concerns regarding the move

• Threat to secular credentials of state: Scope for anti-secular state interference violating freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 and 26.
  • State being identified with religion could fuel religious insecurities in a multi-religious society.
• Spiritual heritage of civilisation under question: civilisational values of tolerance and acceptance exhibited overages.
• Constitutional morality under question: Scope for offending ideas of decency, equity, justice etc.