Adherence for tranquillity
Places of Worship Act, 1991, requires a strict implementation to preserve the secular fabric of the nation; write SM Khan & Shahryar Khan
The much talked about Places of Worship Act, 1991, is again in the limelight in the aftermath of a direction given by the Civil Court in Varanasi to appoint a team of court commissioners to conduct an inspection of the Gyanvapi Mosque complex which is situated adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi. The said order has been passed by the Civil Court, on a plea filed by five Delhi-based women seeking permission to perform daily worship of the Shringar Gauri deity located on the outer wall of the Gyanvapi Mosque. Strangely, while the plea was about offering prayers at the Shringar Gauri site, the Civil Court ordered an inspection of the entire Gyanvapi Mosque premises, including the ‘mosque’ and the ‘tehkana’ which were not the subject matter of this civil suit. The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee that manages the Gyanvapi Mosque objected to the order of the Civil Court and had initially approached the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad to intervene and stay the order of the Civil Court. However, the High Court refused to intervene.
The counsels for the plaintiff in the civil suit state that the order of the Civil Court regarding the inspection of the Gyanvapi Mosque premises is not in violation of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, as the Act was enacted for freezing the status of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, and the prayer in the civil suit is not for changing the title of the place of worship but to allow pooja ‘sthapana’ at the Shringar Gauri. However, the Masjid Committee has now taken up the entire matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, stating that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, prohibits any court proceedings in relation
It is up to the consideration of the highest court of the country to exercise its inherent powers and stay the proceedings which are in violation of the Places of Worship Act, 1991
to religious institutions, which was also reiterated by the Apex Court in the Ram Janmabhoomi-babri Masjid case — stating that the Act is a legislative instrument designed to safeguard the secular character of the country, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution.
It may be pertinent here to point out that the Narsimha Rao-led government enacted the Places of Worship Act, on September 18, 1991, for freezing the status of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947. The act was passed one year prior to the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Even though the provisions of the Act did not apply to the Ram Janambhoomi-babri Masjid dispute it was still seen as an instrument of negotiating the dispute by building confidence among the Muslim community. The Act was a reassurance to the Muslim community that if they accept the claims of the Hindu organisations on the disputed site even then other mosques in the country would remain to be protected. The places of worship under the Act are not limited to mosques but include places of worship of all faiths including temples, gurudwaras, churches, monasteries and any other place of public religious worship. The Act mandates that all suits, appeals or any other proceedings with respect to converting the character of a place of worship, which were pending before any court or authority on August 15, 1947, will abate as soon as the law comes into force. This law is a special enactment and prevails over any other law in force.
It should be emphasised that as the Masjid Intezamia has now approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, making the plea that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, prohibits any legal proceedings pertaining to the legal status of any place of worship, which is entirely applicable in the present case as well. Now, it is up to the consideration of the highest court of the country to exercise its inherent powers and stay the proceedings which are in violation of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 and have the potential of disturbing the calm and peace in the country. If such proceedings are allowed, it will give false hope to radical organisations to stake a claim about various disputed religious sites and create fears in the mind of the minority communities with regard to their places of worship. It will also have a cascading effect on the secular fabric of the nation.
SM Khan is Vice President of India Islamic Cultural Centre & Director of Jamia Hamdard; Shahryar Khan is Advocate, Delhi High Court. Views expressed are personal