Places and worship: On the Supreme Court hearing
Supreme Court hearing may decide future of secularism in India
A special Bench of the Supreme Court of India, headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, will begin hearing on December 12 a batch of petitions that question the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, a law that freezes the status of places of worship in the country as on the day of its independence and bars suits that seek to alter such status. It is no exaggeration to say these petitions pose a virulent challenge to the survival of secularism. The outcome may well decide the trajectory of communal relations and the future of secular thought in the country. The 1991 Act does have some exemptions: it did not apply to what was then the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, which ended in favour of the Ram temple. Nor does it apply to monuments, sites and remains 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. The challenge has come in the backdrop of a renewed attempt through motivated litigation by some Hindu organisations and devotees to target mosques such as the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura and the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, among others. Any order that strikes down or dilutes the 1991 law is likely to have a malign influence on these proceedings.
The petitions highlight the demolition of temples by invaders in the past and contend that many mosques have been built on their ruins. The Places of Worship Act, they claim, legalises such depredations, and also violates the right of Hindus and other communities to reclaim their places of worship through legal proceedings. It also violates the right to practise and propagate religion and manage and administer places of worship. Ironically, they also contend that the Act goes against the principle of secularism, which would surely stand to be undermined if their attempts to reclaim these sites succeed. Fortunately, there are some clearly established principles in favour of the Act. In its Ayodhya judgment, a five-member Bench observed that the law “imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism”. It also called it a “legislative intervention that preserves non-retrogression as an essential feature of our secular values”. For the present, it does not seem likely that the Court will depart from the Constitution’s secular vision and Parliament’s mandate against misusing judicial fora to remedy historical wrongs.