A key moment in Varanasi
The district court’s decision on the Places of Worship Act will shape the Gyanvapi dispute
Does the 1991 Places of Worship Act bar legal efforts to claim worshipping rights in shrines belonging to other faiths? Or, does an exception for “ancient” holy sites provide enough leeway for Hindu petitioners seeking to gain access to the Gyanvapi Masjid complex? A Varanasi district court will deliberate on these two urgent points starting later this week, marking a turn in the year-long litigation by five Hindu women seeking the right to unfettered access and worship to idols of Hindu deities they say are installed in the 17th century mosque. The district court decided on Tuesday that it will hear the petition by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, which manages the Gyanvapi mosque, seeking dismissal of the suit before deciding on any applications by the Hindu side.
This is an important development because the questions framing the petition by the masjid committee strike at the heart of the dispute. The crux of their argument rests on Section 4 of the Act, which declares a place of worship’s religious character “shall continue to be the same as it existed” as it was on August 15, 1947, and bars all pending and future litigation demanding a change in the religious character of a place. Section 4(2) says any suit or legal proceeding on the conversion of the religious character of any place pending before any court shall abate and no fresh suit or legal proceedings will be instituted. The Hindu side, in contrast, points to Section 4(3), which says the law won’t apply to any place of worship which is an “ancient and historical monument” or archaeological site, among others. They argue that the Maa Shringar Gauri Sthal is an ancient structure and, therefore, exempted from the provisions of the Act.
As this newspaper has noted before, deciding on the applicability of the 1991 law at the earliest possible juncture is key to expeditiously resolving the dispute. The court’s decision, therefore, is welcome, especially because the decision will also have an impact on similar disputes in Mathura. Ultimately, however, the Supreme Court may have to weigh in on the subject, given that three petitions challenging the law are already pending before it – unless the government decides to take a call. Either way, the fate of the Places of Worship Act will indicate whether a fragile compact struck in the 1990s to forestall any more disputes of the nature of the Ram Janmabhoomi-babri Masjid will hold, or whether India is entering a new era where such majoritarian efforts to reclaim historical sites will become the norm.