The Supreme Court of India has intervened decisively in the ongoing debate surrounding the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, directing a stay on the registration of fresh civil suits and the issuance of survey orders related to disputed religious sites. This order, issued by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, underscores the complexity and sensitivity surrounding the legal and constitutional dimensions of this Act.
Context and Background
The Places of Worship Act, enacted in 1991 under the Narasimha Rao government, was designed to preserve the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947. By doing so, the law sought to prevent communal discord arising from historical disputes. However, the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute was expressly excluded from the Act's purview.
The Act has been hailed as a legislative step towards ensuring communal harmony, but it has faced criticism from various groups claiming it curtails the judiciary's ability to adjudicate property and religious disputes.
Recent petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act argue that it infringes upon the fundamental right to judicial review.
Supreme Court’s Directive
On December 12, 2024, the bench comprising CJI Khanna, Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, stayed all ongoing surveys and prohibited the registration of new suits concerning ownership or title of places of worship until further notice. Notably, the court emphasized that civil courts should not issue any interim or final orders in pending cases during this period.
The order impacts high-profile disputes such as those involving the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, the Shahi Idgah in Mathura, and the Jama Masjid in Sambhal. The decision also reinforces the Supreme Court’s intention to take control of the narrative surrounding the interpretation of the Act.
Center’s Response Sought
The bench expressed dissatisfaction with the Central Government’s delay in presenting its stance on the constitutional challenge to the Act. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was directed to submit the government’s position within four weeks, highlighting the urgency and importance of resolving the matter expeditiously.
The CJI referenced the landmark Ayodhya judgment of 2019 to underline the principles guiding the court’s decision. The judgment, which upheld the importance of preserving the secular fabric of India, stated that historical wrongs could not justify disturbing the present or future.
Legal Perspectives
The directive has sparked significant debate in legal and academic circles. Senior advocates have argued both for and against the continuation of pending suits. While some contend that stopping proceedings compromises access to justice, others emphasize the need for restraint to avoid potential communal tensions.
One notable aspect raised during the hearing is whether the Act is a codification of existing constitutional principles. Section 3 of the Act, which prohibits altering the religious character of a place of worship, is being scrutinized to determine if it aligns with constitutional safeguards.
Broader Implications
This stay order serves as a temporary pause on contentious religious disputes, giving the judiciary an opportunity to deliberate on broader constitutional issues such as the limits of legislative power, judicial review, and the balance between historical claims and communal harmony.
It also underscores the Supreme Court’s role in maintaining societal equilibrium by ensuring that civil courts do not preemptively take actions that could exacerbate tensions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the legal and societal significance of the Places of Worship Act. As the judiciary navigates the fine line between constitutional principles and community sentiments, its decisions in the coming months will set important precedents.
The next hearing, scheduled for February 17, 2025, will be pivotal in determining the future of the Act and its implications for religious and constitutional jurisprudence in India.
Thanks For Visiting!!
Comments